October 20, 2021
[0.1] Errors and omission are unavoidable in scientific writing. They are the writer’s equivalent of statistical Type I and Type II errors, respectively. And just as with statistical data, I have worked hard to keep all errors and omission to a minimum in relation to the number of justified statements and judgements. Still, I need to start with a major disclaimer: this book is a work in progress. The current version undoubtedly contains numerous errors, omissions, inaccuracies and wrong generalisations. I can say this with certainty because I have been changing, adding and deleting details up to the last moment before publication of the current version of this book. And I do not expect it to stop here. Actually, the work-in-progress status is intended to be taken quite literally: I plan to update and revise this book regularly in the future. Any progress can be followed online at github.com/cysouw/diathesis. I welcome any suggestions for improvement, which can be submitted as an ‘issue’ on that website, or, even better, as a ‘pull request’ including proposed changes and corrections.
[0.2] This book is about German grammar, but the book is written in English. These two decisions have a purely personal background. First, the idea to write about German grammar arose in the context of me teaching German grammar at the Philipps-University in Marburg. Actually, the diversity of diathesis could, and should, be investigated in the same depth in other language besides German. Second, the book is written in English first and foremost because I personally feel more comfortable writing in English than in German. Also, I think that the current approach to diathesis is also of interest to readers that do not care too much about all minute details of German grammar. And for the readers that are interested in those details of the German language, I assume that they both have a working knowledge of English (so they can read this text) and of German (so they can understand the German examples). For that reason I decided to omit any interlinear glossing of the examples. Most examples are simple enough to be understood even with just an approximate understanding of German. Adding interlinear glossing throughout would be an enormous undertaking, which I think is not worthwhile given the intended readership.
[0.3] This book is written in Pandoc Markdown. Markdown (commonmark.org) allows for clean and readable raw text, while Pandoc (pandoc.org) provides easy transformations of the text into beautiful output, for example in formats like Latex/PDF or HTML. I have used various extensions for Pandoc (‘filters’ in Pandoc-parlance), for example to format and number linguistic examples. More information on these filters can be found on the github webpage mentioned above.
[0.4] The many lists, examples and subsections of this book make it almost a serialised database, and I have included many cross references to connect related parts throughout. To read the resulting hypertext I would urge the reader to try out an electronic version, either PDF or HTML. I personally have become really enamoured with the HTML version as it allows for easy searching and for quick forward-and-backward jumping through the text using our already internalised muscle-memory from web browsing. Also, the advances in CSS-styling are progressed to such an extend that the layout of HTML is almost approaching LateX sophistication, while adding a responsive/adaptive design (Marcotte 2010). Additionally, the file size of the HTML version is substantially smaller than the PDF prepared with XeLateX. The HTML version of this book is prepared as a single standalone file that can be used offline. This file is opened in a webbrowser, even when the file is saved locally. It just uses the web browser as a text-rendering engine.
[0.5] Of the many students that have participated in my lectures and seminars (and had to endure my work-in-progress) I would like to explicitly thank Dennis Beitel, Franziska Beyer, Patricia Bier, Katja Daube, Milena Gropp, Eric Ilten, Jens Jakob, Christina Jann, Vanessa Lang, Katrin Leinweber, Rieke Hänche, Philip Ossowski, Nico Reinicke, Kristina Splanemann and Stella van den Berg. They wrote very useful term papers or theses about topics related to the topics discussed here.
[1.1] The quintessential example of German diathesis, found in virtually every grammatical descriptions of German, is the werden + Partizip passive construction (1.1 a). A central characteristic of this construction is that the state-of-affairs as described by this passive is fundamentally the same as in the corresponding active (1.1 b), though the sentence structure of course differs between the two expressions.
| (1.1) | a. | Das Gemälde wird (von einem Künstler) gemalt. |
| b. | Der Künstler malt ein Gemälde. |
[1.2] This approach to diathesis, viz. different grammatical sentence structures that express approximately the same state-of-affairs, is applicable to a large number of grammatical phenomena in German. For example, some verbs allow for passive-like constructions without any werden auxiliary, often called ‘anticausative’ (1.2 a). Other verbs allow for an alternation between a case-marked accusative and a prepositional phrase, often called ‘antipassive’ (1.2 b). Further, there exist many different kinds of diathesis marked by a reflexive pronoun sich (1.2 c) or marked by preverbs like ent- (1.2 d). Many auxiliary-like construction beyond the werden + Infinitiv passive also show diathesis, e.g. sein + zu + Infinitiv (1.2 e).1
| (1.2) | a. | Der Doktor heilt den Schmerz. Der Schmerz heilt (durch den Doktor). |
| b. | Der Jäger schießt den Bären. Der Jäger schießt auf den Bären. |
|
| c. | Der Lehrer beklagt den Lärm. Der Lehrer beklagt sich über den Lärm. |
|
| d. | Der Kandidat stammt aus einem Adelsgeschlecht. Der Kandidat entstammt einem Adelsgeschlecht |
|
| e. | Der Ermittler löst den Fall. Der Fall ist (für den Ermittler) leicht zu lösen. |
[1.3] All in all, there are about 250 different German diatheses described in this book, some highly productive, some only attested for a handful of verbs. The main goal of this book is to present this wealth of grammatical possibility in a unified manner, while at the same time attempting to classify and organise this diversity. I will make no attempt to fit all these constructional possibilities of the German language into any specific grammatical framework, although the collection of diatheses presented here might be taken as a modelling-challenge for your favourite grammatical theory.
[1.4] It might come as a surprise that there are so many different diatheses in German, but my impression is that German is no exception among the world’s languages in this respect. I expect that all languages have a wealth of different ways in which to construe a sentence around a lexical predicate. In a sense, diatheses allow for the expression of different perspectives on the event described, something that is arguably a common desire of any language user.
[1.5] This first chapter summarises the basic definitional properties of diathesis. The next Chapter 2 describes in detail how diatheses are analysed and classified. Chapter 3 presents a summary of the 70+ major German diatheses and proposes German names for those structures. Chapters 4 to 12 are the main, almost database-like, chapters discussing each sentence structure separately. Finally, Chapters 13 to 15 discuss additional phenomena that are related to diathesis.
[1.6] In this book, each diathesis has its own sub-subsection with an unique section header that can be used as a name to refer to the diathesis (e.g. Section 9.5.14 on the “werden + Partizip passive”). Many of these unique names are quite boring, but hopefully descriptively useful for future reference. Individual verbs (often with concrete examples) are listed with each diathesis to show the extend of its applicability. Neither these lists of verbs nor the examples are intended to be exhaustive in any way. They should be seen as a first step towards more in-depth research into individual diatheses or into the different constructional possibilities that exist for individual verbs.
[1.7] The current attempt to present an all-encompassing survey of German diatheses builds on a rich scholarly tradition (with many scholarly precursors to be cited in appropriate places throughout this work). A comparable and highly influential survey of diathesis for English is Levin (1993), followed by a similar attempt for German by Sauerland (1994). A recent cross-linguistic survey of valency and diathesis in this tradition is edited by Malchukov & Comrie (2015), which also includes data on German (Haspelmath & Baumann 2013). Independent of Levin’s work, there is a long tradition in the German grammatical literature to investigate diathesis, e.g. as ‘Konversenverhältnis der Aktanten’ (Eroms 1980: 24; cf. Heringer 1968). An early attempt at a survey of various diatheses is presented by Höhle (1978). Basic summaries of german diathesis in the context of valency can be found in Eroms (2000: Ch. 10) or Ágel (2000: Ch. 6). There also are a few monographs about specific German diatheses (e.g. Leirbukt 1997; Holl 2010; Jäger 2013) and recently some corpus studies into the effect of specific diatheses on individual verbs have appeared (De Vaere, De Cuypere & Willems 2018; Imo 2018; Dux 2020: Ch. 6).
[1.8] Diathesis is of course closely linked to the concept of valency, so the groundbreaking valency dictionary for German by Helbig and Schenkel (1983) deserves mentioning. They identify the problem that certain verbs can be used in different constructions, but diatheses are not investigated consistently in their dictionary. Another highly influential valency dictionary for German, edited by Schumacher (1986; also the precursor Engel & Schumacher 1978), discusses passive diatheses for all verb. I see the current survey of German diatheses as a first step in extending such valency dictionaries into even more all-encompassing dictionaries that discuss all possible clause constructions for each verb.
[1.9] A diathesis is defined here as special kind of alternation between two different clause constructions. To properly define the notion ‘diathesis’, I will first define ‘alternation’ in general. Next, the definition of ‘clause alternation’ will be built on that basis. Finally, a diathesis will then be defined as special kind of clause alternation. A few crucial concepts that are used in the following definitions will be discussed in more detail in subsequent sections.
[1.10] An alternation (or simply ‘grammatical marking’) is defined as follows:
[1.11] Alternations are the basis of all grammatical analysis.2 They include for example:
[1.12] Based on the definition of an alternation, a clause alternation is defined as follows:
[1.13] Clause alternations are widespread when auxiliaries are introduced, like modal müssen ‘have to’ (1.3 a), see Section 10.4.1. However, clause alternations are attested with many more different kinds of marking, like the verb particle auf marking completeness of the action (1.3 b), see Section 5.7.6, or the somewhat mysterious ‘free’ reflexive sich with verbs like ansehen ‘look at’ (1.3 c), see Section 6.4.4. Arguably, the special word order in German subordinate clauses (viz. the finite verb occurs clause-final) can also be considered to be a clause alternation (1.3 d).
| (1.3) | a. | Er erledigt seine Hausaufgaben. Er muss seine Hausaufgaben erledigen. |
| b. | Ich esse den Apfel. Ich esse den Apfel auf. |
|
| c. | Er hat das Haus angesehen. Er hat sich das Haus angesehen. |
|
| d. | Er erledigt seine Hausaufgaben. Ich hoffe, dass er seine Hausaufgaben erledigt. |
[1.14] Based on the notion of a clause alternation, a diathesis (sometimes also known as ‘valency alternation’) is defined as follows:
[1.15] The prototypical example of a diathesis is the werden + Partizip passive (1.4 a), see Section 9.5.14. In both clause alternants the same state of affairs is described, but the marking of the participants is different. However, the diversity of diatheses in German is enormous as this book attempts to show. There are, for example, covert diatheses (i.e. diatheses without any marking on the verb) like the infamous anticausative in (1.4 b), see Section 4.5.5, or antipassives marked with a reflexive pronoun as shown in (1.4 c), see Section 6.7.5.
| (1.4) | a. | Der Schreiner lackiert den Tisch. Der Tisch wurde von dem Schreiner lackiert. |
| b. | Ich koche den Kaffee. Der Kaffee kocht. |
|
| c. | Der Fahrradfahrer fürchtet den Anstieg. Der Fahrradfahrer fürchtet sich vor dem Anstieg. |
[1.16] Hidden in these succinct definitions there are various intricate grammatical concepts that need some more discussion in subsequent sections. The most general notions are discussed directly below, while the specific discussion of the analysis and classification of different kinds of diathesis is postponed for the next chapter.
[1.17] Diatheses are defined here as alternations between single clauses with the same main verb. However, a single clause in German can sometimes consist of multiple verb forms. It is crucial to strictly distinguish between situations in which a multi-verb construction is monoclausal and when it is not. The basis of the definition of monoclausality in German is a concept called coherence.
[1.18] All diatheses listed in this book are monoclausal. Besides trying to list all German diatheses, I will also list all non-diathetical clause alternation, i.e monoclausal alternations without any change in role-marking (these are always listed in the .4 section of each data chapter). This book can thus also be read as a listing of all German monoclausal constructions, with or without role remapping. Somewhat unexpectedly, the number of alternations without any role remapping (i.e. the alternations without diathesis) is much smaller than the number of monoclausal alternations with changes in role marking (i.e. the diatheses).
[1.19] To define monoclausality, the crucial characteristic of German syntax is that the finite verb is moved to the end of the sentence in a subordinate clauses. I will use the dummy main sentence Es ist bekannt, dass… ‘it is known that’ to force a subordinate construction. The position of the finite verb in the subordinate clause can be used the identify the boundary of the clause: everything that can occur before the finite verb belongs within the clause; everything that has to come after the finite verb belongs to a different clause. For example, the simple sentence (1.5 a) will turn into (1.5 b) as a subordinate clause, with the finite verb at the end; (1.5 c) with constituents after the finite verb is not possible. So the whole sentence in (1.5 a) is a single clause. Constructions with such a pattern will be called coherent, following Bech (1955); see also Kiss (1995) for a more in-depth and more extensive discussion of the concept ‘coherence’. Coherent constructions are considered to be monoclausal.
| (1.5) | a. | Ich gehe morgen nach Hause. | |
| b. | Es ist bekannt, dass ich morgen nach Hause gehe. | ||
| c. | * | Es ist bekannt, dass ich gehe morgen nach Hause. |
[1.20] Exactly the same coherence is attested in auxiliary constructions with participles (1.6) and infinitives (1.7). Such constructions are also monoclausal.
| (1.6) | a. | Ich habe gestern ein Haus gekauft. | |
| b. | Es ist bekannt, dass ich gestern ein Haus gekauft habe. | ||
| c. | * | Es ist bekannt, dass ich gestern gekauft habe ein Haus. |
| (1.7) | a. | Ich will morgen ein Haus kaufen. | |
| b. | Es ist bekannt, dass ich morgen ein Haus kaufen will. | ||
| c. | * | Es ist bekannt, dass ich morgen kaufen will ein Haus. |
[1.21] Constructions with zu and infinitive are sometimes coherent, e.g. (1.8) with the finite verb geben ‘to give’, and sometimes non-coherent, e.g. (1.9) with the finite verb behaupten ‘to claim’. The coherent construction in (1.8 a) is thus monoclausal, while the non-coherent construction in (1.9 a) consists of two clauses.
| (1.8) | a. | Der Protest gibt ihr zu denken. | |
| b. | Es ist bekannt, dass der Protest ihr zu denken gibt. | ||
| c. | * | Es ist bekannt, dass der Protest gibt ihr zu denken. |
| (1.9) | a. | Der Sportler behauptet den Wettkampf zu gewinnen. | |
| b. | * | Es ist bekannt, dass der Sportler den Wettkampf zu gewinnen behauptet. | |
| c. | Es ist bekannt, dass der Sportler behauptet den Wettkampf zu gewinnen. |
[1.22] In some intermediate cases both orders are possible, as shown with the finite verb helfen ‘to help’ in (1.10).
| (1.10) | a. | Ich helfe dir den Koffer zu tragen. |
| b. | Es ist bekannt, dass ich dir helfe den Koffer zu tragen. | |
| c. | Es ist bekannt, dass ich dir den Koffer zu tragen helfe. |
[1.23] Maybe surprisingly, when the above definition of monoclausality is strictly followed, then there appear to be dozens of verbs that can be used as the finite ‘auxiliary’ in a coherent multi-verb construction. When used as finite auxiliaries, these verbs are more or less strongly grammaticalised, i.e. they shed much of their lexical meaning when used in multi-verb constructions. Such grammaticalised verbs are classified into different groups and referred to by many different names in the German grammatical literature, e.g. Hilfsverb, Kopulaverb, Modalverb, Modalitätsverb, Halbmodalverb (Eisenberg 2006a), Funktionsverb (Polenz 1963 cited in Kamber 2008: 34), Strukturverb (Weber 2005), or Stützverb (Seelbach 1991 cited in Kamber 2008: 34). I will not pursue the question here how to classify these verbs into different kinds. I will simply refer to the whole group of these ‘auxiliary’ verbs as light verbs. All light verbs that will be discussed in later chapters are shown here in alphabetical order in (1.11), though note that not all of them are involved in diathesis. A few of the verbs listed below are only attested in monoclausal alternation without diathesis.
| (1.11) | German verbs that can be used as light verbs |
| anfangen, aufhören, aussehen, beginnen, bekommen, bleiben, brauchen, bringen, drohen, dürfen, erscheinen, fahren, finden, fühlen, geben, gehen, gehören, gelten, glauben, haben, halten, heißen, helfen, hören, kommen, kriegen, können, lassen, legen, lehren, liegen, machen, möchten, mögen, müssen, nehmen, pflegen, riechen, scheinen, schicken, sehen, sein, setzen, sollen, spüren, stehen, tun, versprechen, werden, wirken, wissen, wollen |
[1.24] A difficult problem is the question whether it is really the same verb that is used in two alternating constructions of a diathesis. For example, the verb trinken ‘to drink’ is a regular transitive verb, but when used intransitively, er trinkt ‘he drinks’, it has a clear implication that his drinking includes too much alcohol, so it might be better translated as ‘he is an alcoholic’. In this case, this intransitive interpretation is probably best analysed as a conventional implicature, because the alcoholism aspect of the meaning can be suppressed given the right context.
[1.25] In general, when the same lexical verb is used in different alternating constructions, then there is (of course) a difference in meaning between the two occurrences. However, ideally this difference is completely induced by the respective constructions and not by the lexical verb itself. Yet, it is extremely common for the combination of a lexical verb with the surrounding construction to grammaticalise into a new meaning. For example, the verb auftreten means something like ‘to act’ as an intransitive, but to kick open as a transitive. Both meanings originate from the meaning ‘to step on something (by foot)’. Likewise, historical processes can lead to current homophony of two different lexemes. This appears to be the case for example with the verb abhauen, which is a transitive verb meaning ‘cut of’ (e.g. Er hat den Ast abgehauen). However, it has attained another usage during the course of the 20th century as an intransitive verb meaning ‘run away’ (e.g. Er ist abgehauen), probably based on a southern German dialectal meaning of hauen ‘to go, to walk’ (Pfeiffer 1993: ‘hauen’, accessed 12.12.2018).
[1.26] In between those extremes (i.e. conventional implicature and different lexicalisation) there exist various intermediate phenomena. For example, the verb hängen ‘to hang’ can be used as a regular intransitive verb with a location, like Er hängt an einem Seil ‘He dangles to a rope’, but the specific combination with the preposition an can also have a special reading of ‘being emotionally attached to something’, like in Er hängt an seinem Teddy ‘He is (emotionally) attached to his Teddy’. In this case it seems most appropriate to interpret the combination hängen an as a separate lexicalisation, though the path of the conventional implicature can still be intuitively grasped.
[1.27] As with all grammaticalisation processes, it is often difficult to decide where to draw the line on the continuum between conventional implicature, metaphorical extension (trinken) and contextual lexicalisation (hängen an) or completely different lexicalisation (auftreten, abhauen). I tend to be rather lenient in allowing slightly different meanings to be included as the ‘same’ verb, but will exclude clear examples of the latter two types on the continuum as separate lexicalisations of homophonous elements.
[1.28] A crucial aspect of diathesis is that the lexical roles do not change, only the grammatical encoding of the roles changes. For example, the verb füllen ‘to fill’ occurs in various monoclausal constructions (1.12), but the roles of (i) ‘filler’, (ii) ‘filled container’ and (iii) ‘filling substance’ are always the same. The different grammatical forms that are used to express these roles are added as subscripts to each sentence in the examples below.
| (1.12) | a. | Ichi: NOM fülle den Topfii: ACC (mit Reisiii: PREP). |
| b. | Ichi: NOM fülle den Reisiii: ACC in den Topfii: PREP. | |
| c. | Der Reisiii: NOM füllt (miri: DAT) den Magenii: ACC. | |
| d. | Der Blumentopfii: NOM füllt sich (mit Wurzelniii: PREP). |
[1.29] Already from this example it becomes clear that it is often really difficult, if not impossible, to attach a specific valency to a verb. Given that most (and possibly all) German lexemes show some kind of diathesis, I reject the traditional notion of a fixed valency belonging to a specific verb (see Section 2.2 for a more extensive discussion). Alternatively, I propose that it is possibly to list all lexeme-specific roles (or equivalently lexical roles) as a fixed characteristic of each lexical verb. The following criteria will be used to determine the lexical roles of a verb:
[1.30] First, each role that is case-marked in at least one clause-alternant is a lexeme-specific role. In the example of füllen in (1.12), each of the three roles is marked as nominative, accusative or dative in at least one of the alternants, so all three roles are lexeme-specific. Various exceptions and stipulations to this criterion are discussed in Section 4.2.
[1.31] Second, all obligatory prepositional phrases are lexeme-specific roles. Such prepositional phrases, that cannot be left out, are not very widespread in German and mostly designate a location. Some verbs always expect such a location-role (1.13 a,b), see e.g. Section 5.3.4, Section 6.3.4, but more widespread are resultative diatheses that introduce an obligatory local role (1.13 c,d), see e.g. Section 5.8.7.
| (1.13) | a. | Der Stuhl befindet sich im Wohnzimmer | |
| b. | * | Der Stuhl befindet sich. | |
| c. | Ich breche ein Loch in den Felsen. | ||
| d. | * | Ich breche ein Loch. |
[1.32] Third, there is a large class of lexeme-specific prepositional phrases that I will call governed prepositions, like arbeiten an ‘to work on’ (1.14 a). These prepositional phrases are not obligatorily present (1.14 b). The intuition behind governed prepositions is that these prepositions are lexically determined by the verb and often strongly grammaticalised both semantically and structurally. Semantically, the preposition an with the verb arbeiten ‘to work’ (1.14 a) is strongly bleached with none of its local ‘touching’ meaning remaining. Syntactically, the prepositional phrase in arbeiten an can be filled with a complement clause of the form daran, dass … (1.14 c). This syntactic criterion will be used as the main characteristic to identify governed prepositions. Various exceptions and stipulations to this criterion are discussed in Section 5.2.
| (1.14) | a. | Ich arbeite an meinem Buch. |
| b. | Ich arbeite hart. | |
| c. | Ich arbeite daran, dass das Buch fertig wird. |
[1.33] Under this approach, there are a few lexical roles that appear to be very widespread, up to the point of seemingly being universally applicable to all verbs. If that would be the case, then it would defeat the idea of lexeme-specific roles. However, on closer inspection my impression is that there are no roles that apply to all verbs. The closest contender is, arguably, the role of causer, which can be introduced to almost any German verb by using the lassen + Infinitiv diathesis (1.15), see Section 10.6.2. However, there is a small group of verbs that do not allow for this diathesis, like gefallen ‘to like’ (1.16). This shows that even virtually universal roles are still lexically determined.
| (1.15) | a. | Der Student arbeitet an einer Aufgabe. |
| b. | Der Professor lässt den Student an einer Aufgabe arbeiten. |
| (1.16) | a. | Dein Haarschnitt gefällt mir. | |
| b. | * | Er lässt mir seinen Haarschnitt gefallen. |
[1.34] Such lexeme-specific roles are called ‘verb-specific semantic roles’ in Van Valin (2004) and ‘microroles’ in Hartmann et al. (2014). The obvious next step (as discussed in both these papers) is to cluster such microroles into clusters of semantic/thematic mesoroles, i.e. widespread roles like ‘agent’, ‘patiens’, ‘experiencer’ etc. Such semantic roles are used constantly in contemporary linguistics, but they are surprisingly ill-defined. For example, given a random German verb like füllen as exemplified at the start of this section: what should be its semantic roles, and what criteria should be used to determine this? Hartmann et al. (2014) and Cysouw (2014) use cross-linguistic data to approach this question. However, such an approach does not allow for language-specific definitions, which is the problem in the current example of German.
[1.35] My proposal for a language-specific determination of semantic mesoroles is to use the applicability of diatheses as a criterion. For example, a ‘German Patiens’ might be defined as those lexical roles that are changed from accusative to nominative in the werden passive diathesis. Or more general: a semantic role can be defined by a combination of applicable diatheses. The research project to determine suitable combinations of diatheses will not be pursued here, but left for a follow-up investigation.
[1.36] A widespread assumption in linguistic analysis is that most alternations (including diatheses) have a sensible domain of application. This is the idea that there is some rationale, often a kind of semantic characterisation, explaining which roots allow for a specific kind of linguistic marking (e.g. only transitive verbs allow for a werden passive).3 Although I also believe that many alternations, including diatheses, mostly behave sensibly, I would also warn not to expect too much regular (semantic) generalisations hidden in grammatical structure. Many grammatical regularities have unexpected exceptions, be it because of haphazard diachronic changes or through partial analogical extension. Even stronger, some grammatical marking appears to be almost completely without (semantic) rationale, like the assignment of plural allomorphy in German. If that can happen in morphology, it can also happen in syntax.
[1.37] As a practical approach to the domain of application of a specific alternation (say, which verbs allow for the werden passive, or for the reflexive anticausative, etc.), I propose to always first enumerate as much examples as possible. In other words, first inductively establish an empirical verb class of those verbs that happen to be attested. In this book, I will not be satisfied with four or five cases that suggest a neat semantic coherence for a specific diathesis, but list as many as possible further examples, idiosyncratic as they may be. Only after such a formal listing of the domain of application (which ideally needs much more corpus research as I have been able to perform here) is it possible to investigate the presence of any (semantic) rationale. In many cases there might be a partial rationale, but it is just as likely (and just as interestingly) to have to conclude that there apparently is none.
[1.38] Taking this principle one step further, I propose to define the domain of application as the concrete listing of all examples. Any (semantic) characterisation is then always a post-hoc generalisation, not a definition. This radically lexicalist interpretation is the approach that I will follow in this book. For each diathesis I will list as many as possible example verbs that take part in the diatheses (for some I will reverse the approach and list verbs that are not part of the domain of application). These lexical lists (i.e. the empirical verb classes) are the definition of the domain of application. For some diatheses, I will speculate about semantic generalisations, but I consider these generalisations always to be secondary to the concrete listing of examples.
[1.39] This principle of the definition by listing even holds for questions of productivity. For example, when somebody would propose a nonce-verb like flurchten to be a new verb for the German language in an experimental setting, then its meaning is partially defined by stating what kind of diatheses it can take part in. Depending on how such a new verb is contextualised, the following construction might or might not be judged grammatical. The choices that will be made influence the meaning of the verb.
| (1.17) | a. | Ich flurchte den X. |
| b. | Ich flurchte an den X. | |
| c. | Ich flurchte mich vor den X. | |
| d. | Der X flurchtet. | |
| e. | Der X flurchtet sich. |
[1.40] Intimately connected to the domain of application (i.e. which verbs allow for which diathesis) is the question as to the meaning/function of a specific diathesis. In essence, this question asks for a description of the difference between the meaning of the two alternants of a diathesis. For example, what is the difference between the transitive (1.18 a) and the corresponding reflexive anticausative (1.18 b), see Section 6.5.2.
| (1.18) | a. | Ich schließe die Tür. |
| b. | Die Tür schließt sich. |
[1.41] In general, it turns out to be extremely difficult to give a concise description of such differences, and I will mostly refrain from trying to provide such descriptions. Each diathesis is actually its own research project, preferably investigated using predictive corpus analysis (cf. the large literature on the English dative alternation, for German see e.g. De Vaere, De Cuypere & Willems 2018). The actual lists of verbs that allow for a specific diatheses (i.e. the domain of application, see above) also seems to be an important datapoint to investigate the function of a diathesis.
[1.42] The problem of a functional description for a diathesis becomes even more difficult with the realisation that there are dozens of diatheses, often highly similar to each other. For example, it is really difficult (cf. Schäfer 2007; Kurogo 2016) to characterise the difference between the reflexive anticausative above in (1.18) and the unmarked anticausative in (1.19), see Section 4.5.5.
| (1.19) | a. | Ich koche den Kaffee. |
| b. | Der Kaffee kocht. |
[1.43] An important side-note in this respect are those alternations that have similar formal characteristics as diatheses, but which do not have any role-remapping. Such sentence alternations are not considered to be diatheses here (they will be called ‘epithesis’), but they are still discussed in the .4 sections of each chapter. An example is the phenomenon of ‘free’ reflexives (1.20), see Section 6.4.4. Although there is no role-remapping in this alternation (and thus no diathesis), it turns out to be really difficult to describe the difference between (1.20 a) and (1.20 b). All sentence alternations, with or without role-remapping, are in need of a functional analysis, and most such analyses will involve substantial research.
| (1.20) | a. | Ich habe das Haus angesehen. |
| b. | Ich habe mir das Haus angesehen. |
[1.44] Methodologically, I see the approach in this book as an attempt to unify grammatical research with lexicographic research, two aspects of linguistics that are often considered to be separate inquiries. In contrast to such a separation, I would like to propose a view of linguistics that might be called grammar of the lexicon (cf. Levin 1993: 2-4, but one might just as well include all of construction grammar here). In this approach, each grammatical phenomenon should always be linked to individual occurrences, either types (lexicon) or tokens (corpus). It is my experience from compiling the current compendium of diatheses that identifying and characterising a specific structure is really just ‘step one’ of grammatical research. Only by trying to find more examples, with different lexemes and in different contexts, it becomes clear how prominent and varying a grammatical structure really is.
[1.45] As as rule-of-thumb, I propose the 10-examples-in-15-minutes-rule as step two of grammatical research. If you think that a particular construction is widespread, or maybe typical for a specific class of words (e.g. typical for ‘intransitives’), then take 15 minutes to search for examples, either in your own intuitions or in one of the many online databases or corpora. Resources like the Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache (DWDS), the various online offerings of the Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS), or just a Google ‘exact search’ are really just a click away and completely rejuvenate linguistic research. If you are not able to list 10 examples in 15 minutes, then go back to the drawing board and reconsider your intuitions.
[1.46] Such a quick-and-dirty 15-minute survey of course still only represents a preliminary step. It is this level of detail that I have aimed for in this book. Each sub-subsection about an individual diathesis lists lexemes that can be used in this diathesis, and includes examples of the diathesis, either from my own intuitions or from any of the above mentioned databases. I plan to fine-tune these lists in future revisions of this book, but the real research is only yet to come. Next steps would be the in-depth investigation of individual diathesis by sampling examples in corpora and formulating predictive parameters to explain their usage. For example, De Vaere et al. (2018) investigate the dative antipassive (see Section 5.7.9) for just a single lexeme geben. As there are hundreds of diatheses and hundreds of verbs listed in this book, this shows that there are tens of thousands of research projects just waiting to be tackled.
[2.1] In their cross-linguistic survey of diathesis, Zuñiga & Kittilä (2019) distinguish between the terms ‘diathesis’, ‘diathetical operation’, ‘grammatical voice’ and ‘transitivity’. I completely subscribe to these conceptual distinctions. However, throughout this book I have decided to simplify the terminology and basically use the term ‘diathesis’ for all four concepts. Still, the concepts valency (Section 2.2), voice (Section 2.3), and diathetical operation (Section 2.4) are central in the analysis of the structure of a diathesis and will be discussed extensively in this chapter. Two new concepts are introduced as well, namely stacking (Section 2.5) and chaining (Section 2.6). Finally, I will present an extensive discussion about naming diatheses (Section 2.7).
[2.2] A diathesis (as defined here) is an alternation between two clausal construction. To be more precise, this is what is called a ‘diathetical operation’ in Zuñiga & Kittilä (2019: 4), see Section 2.4. Each of the alternants show a different mapping of (grammatical) expressions onto (semantic) roles. Individually, each such mapping between expressions and roles is called a ‘diathesis’ in Zuñiga & Kittilä (2019: 4). However, because I will only consider diathetical operations between an ‘unmarked’ basic clause and a ‘marked’ alternant, I have decided to simplify the terminology in this book. Both the alternation itself (Zuñiga & Kittilä’s ‘diathetical operation’, e.g. ‘causativisation’) and the derived alternant (Zuñiga & Kittilä’s ‘diathesis’, e.g. ‘causative’) will be referred to here simply as diathesis.
[2.3] A side-effect of this approach is that ‘active’ is not a diathesis, but simply the unmarked counterpart of a diathetical operation. Even stronger, I will refrain from using the term ‘active’ because it immediately conjures up ‘passive’ as its antithesis. This opposition is too much of an oversimplification as ‘passive’ is just one of the hundreds of possible diatheses. Also, the ‘active’ does not necessarily describes an action, so content-wise this term is likewise ill-fitting. As an alternative, I will use the term basic clause as the unmarked base of comparison for all clause alternations. A basic clause is a clause with a single (finite) verb from, either in the German Präsens or Imperfekt tense.4 All other verb forms, including the Perfekt and the other traditional German tense-aspect distinctions, are all derived clauses, i.e. the result of some kind of clause alternations. A clause alternation without diathesis will be called epithesis, from Greek ἐπίθεσις ‘placement upon, imposition’. Epithesis is grammatical marking ‘on top of’ a basic clause.5 A clause alternation with diathesis is simple referred to as diathesis, from Greek διάθεσις ‘placement in order, (re)arrangement’.
[2.4] The actual linguistic marking of the diathesis (for example by verbal morphology or auxiliaries) is called ‘grammatical voice’ in Zuñiga & Kittilä (2019: 4). In this book, each diathesis is defined as a combination of a (re-)mapping of roles and a specific kind of linguistic marking of the main predicate. So again, this extra terminological distinction is not necessary. The formal expression (‘grammatical voice’) is simply a definitional part of each diathesis here. Still, the different kinds of grammatical voice in German are used in this book as a major organisational characteristic for the separation of the data chapters (see Section 2.3).
[2.5] The term ‘transitivity’ (Zúñiga & Kittilä 2019: 3; following Hopper & Thompson 1980) describes a (recurrent) connection between a diathetical operation and semantic effects on the meaning of the clause. For example, when an accusative argument is remapped onto a prepositional phrase, this often implies less involvement of the argument. The details of such semantic effects of each of the diatheses in this book is a fascinating topic, for which I unfortunately can only offer limited insights throughout. In practice, I assume that each diathesis as described here has some kind of semantic effect, but the details of these effect need much more detailed research that has to be provided by subsequent work.
[2.6] Finally, I prefer to use the term ‘diathesis’ over the frequently attested term ‘valency alternation’, because there are many diatheses in which the valency does not change between the alternants. For example, in (2.1) both sentences have the same valency with a nominative, accusative and prepositional phrase. However, there is a clear diathesis, though arguably there is no change in (basic) valency. Strictly speaking, valency alternations are a subset of all diatheses.
| (2.1) | a. | Ich schmiere Salbe auf die Wunde. |
| b. | Ich beschmiere die Wunde mit Salbe. |
[2.7] Valency is traditionally interpreted as a fixed constructional characteristic of a lexical verb, e.g. the verb geben ‘to give’ is said to be ditransitive.6 A central thesis of this book is that this conception of valency is misguided. Individual verbs can (and normally will) be used in many different constructions with different valency (i.e. most verbs show some kind of diathesis). Consider for example the verb wehen ‘to blow’. Such ‘weather’ verbs are often considered to have zero valency, which in German is characterised by an obligatory es pronoun (2.2 a). However, the same verb can just as well be used as an intransitive (2.2 b,c), as a transitive with an accusative object (2.2 d), or even as a ditransitive with a dative and accusative object (2.2 e). Note that the prepositional phrase in (2.2 c,d,e) cannot be left out, and its obligatory presence might be used to argue for argument-status of these prepositional phrases. The example in (2.2 e) then will be an example of the verb wehen with a valency of four.
| (2.2) | a. | Heute weht es. |
| b. | Gestern wehte kein Lüftchen. | |
| c. | Der Rosenduft weht ins Zimmer. | |
| d. | Der Sturm weht den Schnee von den Dächern. | |
| e. | Der Fahrtwind weht mir die Mütze vom Kopf. |
[2.8] There is a recurrent tendency in the literature to try and reduce such variation to a single valency per verb (viz. its ‘real’ or ‘underlying’ valency), and various strategies are employed to arrive at such a prototypical valency (see e.g. Welke 2011: Ch. 9 for a survey). That will not be the approach taken here. Instead, valency is proposed to be a characteristic of a specific utterance, not of a specific verb. So, the examples in (2.2) can simple be assigned an utterance valency from zero (2.2 a) to four (2.2 e) even though they all use the same lexeme wehen as their main verb.
[2.9] As a replacement of the traditional lexeme-specific notion of valency (e.g. geben is ditransitive), I propose to use the notion of lexeme-specific lexical roles (e.g. geben has lexical roles ‘giver’, ‘givee’, ‘given object’, etc.). Lexical roles are participants that are treated as an argument of utterance valency in at least one of the possible diatheses of a verb (see the next section for the complete definition of such arguments). Looking back at the examples in (2.2 e), the following lexical roles of wehen ‘to blow’ can be established:
[2.10] Additionally, it is of course possible to define a notion of lexeme valency, but this has to be a much more complex construct. For example, lexeme valency can be defined as the collection of all attested utterance valencies for a specific lexeme. To be precise, this lexeme valency also has to include an indexation of the lexical roles across all arguments. This addition is important to distinguish between, for example, the lexical valency of kochen ‘to cook’ (2.3) and essen ‘to eat’ (2.4). Both can occur with a transitive and intransitive utterance valency, but the lexical roles that can be used in the intransitive differ. Specifically, the patient-role ‘eaten object’ of essen cannot be used as nominative subject in the intransitive (2.4 c), which is different from kochen (2.3 c). In effect, these verbs have a different lexeme valency.
| (2.3) | a. | Der Chef kocht den Fond. |
| b. | Der Chef kocht immer noch. | |
| c. | Der Fond kocht immer noch. |
| (2.4) | a. | Der Chef isst den Fond. | |
| b. | Der Chef isst immer noch. | ||
| c. | * | Der Fond isst immer noch. |
[2.11] The lexical roles of a specific verb are defined as those participants that are treated as an argument in at least one of the possible utterance valencies of this verb. So, to identify lexical roles, a strict definition of the arguments of utterance valency is needed. The following kinds of arguments are identified. First, all case marked noun phrase constituents are arguments, with a few exceptions that will be discussed in Section 4.2. Basically, case marked arguments (2.5 a) can be questioned by question pronouns wer or was, including their case forms wem, wen and wessen (2.5 b,c). Further, they can be pronominalised by personal pronouns (2.5 d) or indefinite pronouns (irgend)jemand or (irgend)etwas (2.5 e).
| (2.5) | a. | Der Löwe sieht einen Vogel. |
| b. | Wer sieht einen Vogel? | |
| c. | Was sieht der Löwe? | |
| d. | Er sieht ihn. | |
| e. | Jemand sieht etwas. |
[2.12] Second, prepositional phrases (2.6 a) are arguments of an utterance when they can be replaced by a complement clause of the form da(r)+preposition, dass … (2.6 b). All details of the difficult question when to treat such governed prepositional phrases as arguments are discussed in Section 5.2.
| (2.6) | a. | Der Weltreisende wartet auf einen Zug. |
| b. | Der Weltreisende wartet darauf, dass ein Zug kommt. |
[2.13] Third, there exist obligatory prepositional phrases, though they are not very widespread in German and mostly designate a location. Some verbs always expect such a location-role, like sich befinden ‘to be located somewhere’ (2.7 a,b), see e.g. Section 5.3.4, Section 6.3.4, but more widespread are resultative diatheses that introduce an obligatory local role, like with brechen ‘to break’ (2.7 c,d), see e.g. Section 5.8.7. The example in (2.7 c) crucially shows that arguments should be determined as part of the clause structure, not the lexeme structure. It is perfectly possible to use the verb brechen without a prepositional phrase (2.7 e), but then there needs to be a different lexical role in the accusative.
| (2.7) | a. | Der Stuhl befindet sich im Wohnzimmer | |
| b. | * | Der Stuhl befindet sich. | |
| c. | Ich breche ein Loch in den Felsen. | ||
| d. | * | Ich breche ein Loch. | |
| e. | Ich breche den Felsen. |
[2.14] Finally, all complement clauses are arguments (2.8 a,b), see Chapter 15. Complement clauses can be questioned by was (2.8 c) and pronominalised by a definite pronoun es (2.8 d) or an indefinite pronoun (irgend)etwas (2.8 e). Complement clauses are thus syntactically highly similar to case marked noun phrases. Caution should be taken when interpreting pronominalised examples like (2.8 d,e), because it is not immediately obvious whether the pronouns are replacing a case-marked noun phrase or a complement clause. For example, with the verb hoffen (2.8 e) it is not possible to replace the pronoun es with a noun phrase, though a governed prepositional phrase with auf is possible (2.8 f).
| (2.8) | a. | Er hofft, dass er rechtzeitig kommt. | |
| b. | Er hofft rechtzeitig zu kommen. | ||
| c. | Was hofft er? | ||
| d. | Er hofft es. | ||
| e. | * | Er hofft eine gute Note. | |
| f. | Er hofft auf eine gute Note. |
[2.15] A further kind of utterance-valency argument can be instantiated by es, the 3rd person nominative/accusative pronoun in the neuter gender. There are various uses of this pronoun that have to be distinguished. The most obvious use the pronouns es is for anaphoric reference (phoric es). However, the next two uses not have argument-status (viz. correlative and position-simulating es). Most interestingly in the current context, the fourth usage of es does not have anaphoric reference, but will still be counted as an argument (viz. valency-simulating es).
[2.16] First, es can be used for anaphoric reference to neuter nouns, as shown in (2.9). There are various other variants of such phoric usage, for example it also occurs without direct gender agreement (Czicza 2014: Ch. 2).
| (2.9) | Das Mädchen weint. Ich tröste es. |
[2.17] Second, another kind of referential es occurs with some non-finite complement clauses. By definition, a complement clause replaces an argument (2.10 a), but in some cases a pronoun es remains in place of the original argument, side by side with the complement clause (2.10 b). This is known as a correlative es (Czicza 2014: 79ff.).
| (2.10) | a. | Ich vergesse [meine Aufgaben]. Ich vergesse [schnell zu laufen]. |
| b. | Ich hasse [meine Aufgaben]. Ich hasse es [schnell zu laufen]. |
[2.18] Third, the pronoun es is also used to fill the first sentence position in front of the finite verb (‘Vorfeld’ in German grammatical terminology), because there is a strong regularity in German that this position cannot be left empty (except in imperatives and in yes/no questions). Word order is rather flexible in German, and it is often possible to have no lexical content in the Vorfeld. In such sentences, the pronoun es has to be used to fill the Vorfeld, as shown in (2.11 b). This is known as a position-simulating es (Czicza 2014: 115).
| (2.11) | a. | Es weint ein Mädchen. |
| b. | Ein Mädchen weint. |
[2.19] Finally, there are also constructions that obligatorily include the pronoun es in the sentence as part of the valency of the utterance. The main reason for such an es is that there is a strong regularity in German that a nominative subject has to be present in each sentence (with very few exceptions, see below). Note that ‘subject’ is defined here for German as the nominative noun phrase that shows agreement with the finite verb. When there is no subject available, then the pronoun es is used to fill this gap. This is known as a valency-simulating es (Czicza 2014: 115). In the analysis of diatheses in this book, such valency-simulating es is not alway explicitly noted. Any clause without an nominative argument induces a valency-simulating es (with very few exceptions, as noted below).
[2.20] In constructions with a valency-simulating es, as exemplified in (2.12 a,b), the pronoun es can occur in the Vorfeld (2.12 a), seemingly parallel to the position-simulating usage (2.11 a). However, when another constituent is placed in the Vorfeld, this obligatory es in (2.12 a) cannot be removed, but has to occur elsewhere in the sentence, typically immediately after the finite verb (2.12 b).
| (2.12) | a. | Es stinkt hier sehr. |
| b. | Hier stinkt es sehr. |
[2.21] In a very limited set of constructions, a valency-simulating es is left out, resulting in sentences without any formal nominative subject (2.13). Most of these cases are historical idiosyncrasies, except for the impersonal passive (2.13 d), see Section 9.5.1.
| (2.13) | a. | Heute ist mir kalt. |
| b. | Dem Arzt graut vor Blut. | |
| c. | Mir liegt viel an deiner Anwesenheit. | |
| d. | Jetzt wird geschlafen! |
[2.22] There are also a few rare cases in which there is a valency-simulating es in what appears to be an accusative case (2.14).
| (2.14) | a. | Ich habe es auf ihn abgesehen. (see Section 5.3.5) |
| b. | Wir haben es gut. (see Section 8.7.3) |
[2.23] Adjuncts, the counterparts of arguments, are phrases that are not specifically induced by the main verb of a clause. Typically, such adjuncts are adverbial prepositional phrases, see Section 5.2.2. Just like with arguments, adjunct status should not be linked to a lexical verb itself, but to the clause construction in which it is used. For example, the verb tanzen ‘to dance’ is typically considered to be an intransitive verb with optional (adjunct) locational prepositional phrases (2.15 a,b). However, there is a crucial difference between the two locations in these two examples, see Section 5.8.2. The static location im Saal ‘in the hall’ (2.15 a) remains optional in the perfect (with auxiliary haben), see (2.15 c,d), while the dynamic location in den Saal ‘into the hall’ becomes obligatory in the perfect (with auxiliary sein), see (2.15 e,f). So, the obligatory location in (2.15 e) is an utterance argument (and as a consequence, the role of ‘path’ is a lexical role of such verbs of movement like tanzen).
| (2.15) | a. | Ich tanze (im Saal). | |
| b. | Ich tanze (durch den Saal). | ||
| c. | Ich habe im Saal getanzt. | ||
| d. | Ich habe getanzt. | ||
| e. | Ich bin durch den Saal getanzt. | ||
| f. | * | Ich bin getanzt. |
[2.24] Adjuncts are, by definition, optionally present, so there is a natural connection to zero expression. A central problem here is whether there is a crucial distinction between constructions in which a participant is obligatorily absent (i.e. impossible to express) vs. optionally absent (i.e. possibly not expressed). In most diatheses that involve absence, the whole point is that there is an alternation between absence and presence of a lexical role (e.g. in all drop and addition diatheses). The problematic cases are differences like passive vs. anticausative, which by definition are distinguished by possibility vs. impossibility for the agent to be expressed. This difference is highly volatile (i.e. it often differs from lexeme to lexeme whether it is possible or just dispreferred for an agent to be expressed).
[2.25] The formal linguistic marking of a diathesis, for example by verbal morphology or auxiliaries, is called grammatical voice (following Zúñiga & Kittilä 2019: 4). The different kinds of grammatical voice in German are the basic organisational framework of this book. Each chapter discusses a specific kind of grammatical voice, listing all diatheses using that marking. The nine main chapters can be grouped into four kinds of grammatical voices:
[2.26] The first two chapters deal with diatheses that are not overtly marked as such, i.e. they deal with ‘covert’ diatheses. Because there is no marking on either of the two alternants, it is often difficult to discern a direction in such equipollent alternations. In Chapter 4 I will discuss diatheses that only differ in the marking of case, for example unmarked anticausatives like (2.16). Chapter 5 deals with unmarked diatheses in which at least on of the alternants is a prepositional phrase, for example unmarked antipassive like (2.17).
| (2.16) | a. | Er verbrennt den Tisch. |
| b. | Der Tisch verbrennt. |
| (2.17) | a. | Ich schlürfe meinen Tee. |
| b. | Ich schlürfe an meinem Tee. |
[2.27] The contribution of reflexive pronouns for the marking of diathesis is discussed in Chapter 6. A central claim in this chapter is that ‘self inflicting’ reflexive reference (2.18) does not count as diathesis in German. In contrast, there are various constructions in German that use reflexive pronouns without such ‘self inflicting’ reflexive reference, like the antipassive in (2.19). In such diatheses the presence of a reflexive pronoun is the actual marking of the diathesis, it is not signalling that subject and object are the same participant. An important generalisation about diatheses with reflexive pronouns is that they are always demotions.
| (2.18) | a. | Ich wasche das Auto. |
| b. | Ich wasche mich. |
| (2.19) | a. | Ich fürchte den Tod. |
| b. | Ich fürchte mich vor den Tod. |
[2.28] In Chapter 7 I will turn to preverbs, i.e. verbal prefixes that in German grammar are known as Verbpräfixe and Verbpartikeln. Grammatically, these are different kinds of prefixes, but from the perspective of diathesis they appear to function rather similar. The most widespread diathesis marked by such preverbs is an applicative, like with be- in (2.20). Because of the bound morphological structure, these diathesis show a strong tendency to grammaticalise into a large variety of different kinds of diatheses. A central generalisation of the diatheses discussed in this chapter is that the resulting sentence structures after diathesis are mostly transitive (esp. nominative + accusative).
| (2.20) | a. | Ich steige auf den Berg. |
| b. | Ich besteige den Berg. |
[2.29] Closely related to preverbs are resultative adverbials that induce diathesis, like the applicative with leer in (2.21). Also using adverbials, but of a completely different kind, are diatheses with depictive adverbials, like the anticausative with gut in (2.22). Although these two kinds of adverbials occur in rather different kinds of diathesis, both phenomena are combined into the same chapter on adverbially marked diatheses in Chapter 8.
| (2.21) | a. | Ich habe in den Teich gefischt. |
| b. | Ich habe den Teich leergefischt. |
| (2.22) | a. | Ich fahre den Lastwagen. |
| b. | Der Lastwagen fährt sich gut. |
[2.30] A large group of diatheses uses light verbs in combination with a non-finite form of the lexical verb. A somewhat surprising insight resulting is that light-verb diatheses always involve a role-change of the nominative subject. I distinguish four different kinds of light verb constructions, to be discussed in four different chapters. Chapter 9 discusses light verb construction with participles, like the infamous werden passive (2.23).
| (2.23) | a. | Ich habe einen Brief geschrieben. |
| b. | Der Brief wurde geschrieben. |
[2.31] The next three chapters describe different combinations of light verbs with lexical verbs in the infinitive. Chapter 10 discusses light verbs with straight infinitives, like the lassen causative (2.24).
| (2.24) | a. | Ich wasche meine Kleider. |
| b. | Sie lässt mich meine Kleider waschen. |
[2.32] Chapter 11 investigates light verbs with zu plus infinitive, like the sein anticausative (2.25). And finally, Chapter 12 looks at the combinations with zum plus infinitive, like the bringen causative (2.26).
| (2.25) | a. | Ich führe einen Hund an der Leine. |
| b. | Ein Hund ist an der Leine zu führen. |
| (2.26) | a. | Ich weine. |
| b. | Sie bringt mich zum Weinen. |
[2.33] A diathetical operation is change that happens in the marking of the participants in a diathesis. One of the central definitional properties of a diathesis is that the coding of at least one of the participants has to change, for example a participant erstwhile coded with an accusative turns into a prepositional phrase. Because the role of the participant remains the same (again, by definition), such a change amounts to the mapping of a role onto a different grammatical form. I will call this process role-remapping.
[2.34] In the analysis of diathetical operations in this book I will use the following abbreviations, as summarised in Figure 2.1. First, grammatical expressions, i.e. actual grammatical forms as identified in traditional German grammar, are abbreviated with single letters, shown at the right side of the figure. For case-marked noun phrases I will use the easily recognizable capital letters ‘NADG’ for nominative, accusative, dative and genitive respectively. As argued earlier (see Section 2.2.2) there are also prepositional phrases that express lexically-determined roles. These will also be abbreviated with capital letters: ‘L’ for obligatory locations and ‘P’ for governed prepositional phrases.
[2.35] Lower-cased letters are used for non-argument participants in the clause: ‘p’ for non-governed prepositional phrases and ‘g’ for adnominal genitives. Adnominal genitives become relevant because in some diatheses a newly introduced participant is inherently the possessor of another participant (see paragraph 2.124). Absence of a specific role will be indicated by a ‘–’ dash. Lower-cased ‘a’ and ‘d’ are only used in Section 6.4 to indicate accusative and dative reflexive pronouns in referential usage. As described in much detail in that chapter, it is important to distinguish between reflexive pronouns in German that refer to a lexical role (i.e. ‘referential’ or ‘real’ reflexive constructions) and reflexive pronouns that mark a diathesis without referring to a separate role themselves. Those latter reflexive pronouns, that are not marking any role, are not abbreviated by lowercased ‘a’ or ‘d’.
[2.36] Besides single-letter abbreviations I will also use capitalised three-letter abbreviations for a more abstract level of analysis. As summarised at the left side of Figure 2.1, the grammatical expressions are grouped into sets of grammatical macroroles, mostly along familiar lines. This grouping is not necessarily the best or most optimal grouping, but this grouping has emerged to be useful to organise the large diversity of diatheses in this book. The notion subject (sbj) is used for governed nominative phrases that show agreement with the finite verb.7 The other case-marked governed phrases are combined as cased objects (obj). The cased objects together with the prepositional objects (pbj) form a superclass of objects. Non-governed phrases are separated in overtly expressed adjuncts (adj) and unexpressed roles zero (ø). Although I will use this five-way distinction throughout this book (sbj, obj, pbj, adj, ø), the five steps are not equidistant. The macro-roles obj and pbj are rather closely related, and likewise are adj and ø intimately linked. Collapsing these pairs results in the traditional subject-object-adjunct distinction.
[2.37] There are some indications that the group of cased objects (obj) might be fruitfully separated into core (accusative) and non-core (dative/genitive). This would simplify the analysis of, for example, case change in object chains (Section 2.7.5), the antipassive hierarchy (Section 5.7) and the case-marking of the reflexive pronoun (Section 6.3). However, in the majority of diatheses all three cases seem to behave as a uniform group, so I did not consistently pursue this separation.
[2.38] It is imperative to realise that the macroroles are defined in a language-specific way for German grammar as groupings of language-specific German expressions (e.g. adj is defined as being either a non-governed prepositional phrase or an adnominal genitive). The names that are used (e.g. ‘object’ or ‘adjunct’) deliberately conjure up general cross-linguistic associations, but it remains to be seen whether similar definitions as used here are also useful for other languages. I will refrain from any cross-linguistic speculation in this context here.
[2.39] Using the abbreviations as summarised in Figure 2.1 I will organise and categorise the role-remapping of all diatheses in various levels of abstraction. These different categorisations inform the practical organisation of each chapter.
[2.40] level 1: diathesis. Each diathesis is summarised in its own sub-subsection. The establishment of an individual diathesis is not always obvious, and each diathesis in this book is already an conscious categorisation (which could be wrong). It has actually been a voyage of discovery in the preparation of this book to decide when to consider a set of examples to be a single diathesis. Very often erstwhile single diatheses turned out to be better analysed by a split into various different diatheses. Although I am rather confident in the quality of the current decisions, I expect that further refinements are necessary in the future.
[2.41] level 2: remapping pattern. The role-remapping of each diathesis is analysed using the single-letter abbreviations (NADGPLpgad–) from Figure 2.1. A remapping is specified as an ordered listing of grammatical expressions for roles, both before and after the diathesis. For example, [na | –n] is a diathesis that involves two roles that are marked ‘NA’ before the diathesis and ‘–N’ after the diathesis. Because there are many diatheses with this same pattern, this characterisation is already an (implicit) classification.
[2.42] level 3: local group. Groups of diatheses with similar semantics within each chapter are grouped together as a local group. These groups are rather ad-hoc and mainly represent a convenience-summary to streamline the presentation. Local groups are unnumbered subsections, indicated graphically with dashes around the name of the local group.
[2.43] level 4: macrorole pattern. The remapping of each local group is structurally analysed in terms of the three-letter macroroles (sbj, obj, pbj, adj, ø) from Figure 2.1. For example, the remapping from above [na | –n] includes both a change from N to zero (i.e. sbj › ø) and a change from A to N (i.e. obj › sbj). These two macrorole changes can be combined into a single macrorole patter [obj › sbj › ø].
[2.44] level 5: promotion/demotion. On the most abstract level, all diatheses are separated into chapter-subsections of either demotion or promotion (with only very few diatheses being symmetrical exchanges). Basically, each remapping is evaluated on the macrorole hierarchy (2.27) with role-remapping upwards being promotion and role-remapping downward being demotion. Note that there is a crucial additional criterion necessary, because the majority of diatheses consist of chains of two coinciding remappings (see Section 2.6 on the notion of ‘chains’). In such remappings, the largest jump on the macrorole hierarchy defines a diathesis as being demotion or promotion. When both jumps are equally large, then the diathesis is symmetrical.
| (2.27) | Macrorole Hierarchy |
| sbj » obj » pbj » adj » ø |
[2.45] For example, the diathesis in (2.28) will be analysed as a remapping pattern [na | –n], see Section 6.5.2. This should be read as follows: there is an alternation between a clause with ‘NA’ arguments (nominative, accusative) and a clause with only ‘N’ marking (nominative). The relative order of these letters is crucial, as the order of the roles remains fixed in this notation, e.g. the second letter on the left ‘A’ (accusative) corresponds to the second letter on the right ‘N’ (nominative). The ‘–’ dash on the right indicates that the corresponding ‘N’ on the left is not expressed. Note that the actual linear arrangement of the letters is flexible, as long as both sides of the alternation remain in the same order, i.e. [an | n–] would be the same remapping pattern as [na | –n]. The pattern [na | –n] is an implicit categorisation, because there are many other diatheses that have exactly the same pattern (see e.g. Sections 4.5.5, 8.5.2, 9.5.15).
| (2.28) | a. | Ich schließe die Tür. |
| b. | Die Tür schließt sich. |
[2.46] Although there is a reflexive pronoun in (2.28 b), this pronoun is not included with a lower-cased ‘a’ in the remapping pattern [na | –n], because this reflexive pronoun does not refer to a separate role. The verb schließen ‘to close’ implies at least two different roles, the ‘closer’ and the ‘closed object’, expressed as nominative and accusative in (2.28 a), respectively. In (2.28 b) only the role of ‘closed object’ is expressed as nominative. The reflexive pronoun does not refer to any other role.
[2.47] I interpret the reflexive pronoun in (2.28) as a marker of the diathesis itself (see Chapter 6 for an extensive discussion), so there is an overt direction in the markedness from (2.28 a) to (2.28 b). The vertical bar ‘ | ’ in the middle of the remapping pattern [na | –n] implies this direction in markedness, i.e. left side describes the unmarked alternant and the right the marked alternant. Reordering the remapping pattern would result in a completely reversed diathesis [–n | na].
[2.48] The diathesis in (2.28) is one of various examples of a local group called ‘reflexive antipassive’. Other diatheses in this group include examples like (2.29) with an additional governed preposition, analysed with the remapping pattern [nap | –np], see Section 6.5.4. All diatheses in this local group have the same macrorole pattern, namely [obj › sbj › ø], i.e a cased object is turned into nominative subject, which is turned into zero (i.e. unexpressed).
[2.49] This diathesis is a combination of two different remappings [obj › sbj] and [sbj › ø], with the first being a promotion on the macrorole hierarchy and the second a demotion. However, because the second remapping [sbj › ø] is a larger jump on the hierarchy, the complete combination is categorised as a demotion.
| (2.29) | a. | Das Lied erinnert den Mann an den Krieg. |
| b. | Der Mann erinnert sich an den Krieg. |
[2.50] So, in summary, the role-remapping in the diathesis (2.29) is categorised as:
[2.51] Different diatheses can be applied one after the other, forming stacks of diatheses. The term ‘stacking’ is introduced here explicitly in opposition to ‘subordinating’. Subordination (see Chapter 15) leads to non-coherent multi-clause constructions, while stacks always remain coherent and thus monoclausal.
[2.52] Stacked diatheses can lead to convoluted role-remappings. A beautiful example of such stacking of diatheses is given by Dixon (2014: 252) for the Amazonian language Paumarí. Here, the root noki- ‘to see’ is transparently related to the meaning ‘to show’ through a series of derivational diatheses, viz. noki- ‘to see’, noki-a- ‘to be visible’, na-noki-a- ‘to become visible’, and finally na-noki-a-hi- ‘to make become visible’ i.e. ‘to show’.
[2.53] German does not have that many morphologically bound mechanisms for diathesis, though there are incidental examples that come close. For example, the verb liegen ‘to lie’ changes with ablaut to legen ‘to lay’ (see Section 4.6.3), which in turn can take a preverb to form be-legen ‘to cover’ (see Section 7.9.3). However, when the perspective is broadened beyond bound morphology and all different kinds of German diatheses are considered, then it turns out that stacking of diatheses is extremely widespread.
[2.54] In many cases, the different steps in a stack can be easily disentangled by carefully observing the formal marking of the diathesis. For example, the construction in (2.30 c) includes both a preverb be- and a reflexive pronoun sich and it turns out that these are applied in turn to make a stack of two diatheses. Starting with the verb antworten ‘to answer’ with a governed preposition auf (2.30 a), the applicative preverb be- changes the prepositional phrase to an accusative (2.30 b), see Section 7.8.10. Subsequently, the reflexive anticausative turns the accusative into a nominative and drops the nominative agent (2.30 c), see Section 6.5.2.
| (2.30) | a. | Der Lehrer antwortet auf deine Frage. |
| b. | Der Lehrer beantwortet deine Frage. | |
| c. | Deine Frage beantwortet sich von selbst. |
[2.55] Diatheses are applied one after the other, i.e. the order of the diatheses in a stack is of crucial importance. Basically, a stack is just a list of clause altenations applied one after the other. Semantically this means that each subsequent clause alternation has scope over the previous one. This can for example be written down using a symbol like +> to indicate the additive (+) and sequential (>) nature of the combination. The stack above can then be analysed as: (2.30 c) = (2.30 a) +> be- applicative +> reflexive anticausative. This notation leads to concise analyses, as for example shown in (7.18) for the difference between (2.31 a) and (2.31 b).
| (2.31) | a. | Der Lehrer hat die Aufgabe lösen wollen. = Der Lehrer löst die Aufgabe +> wollen modal (see Section 10.4.1) +> haben perfect (see Section 9.4.1) |
| b. | Der Lehrer will die Aufgabe gelöst haben. = Irgendjemand löst die Aufgabe für den Lehrer. +> benefactive dative (see Section 5.8.9) +> haben dative passive (see Section 9.5.20) +> wollen modal (see Section 10.4.1) |
[2.56] With unmarked (‘covert’) diatheses such stacks can sometimes be tricky to tease apart. As an example, consider the arguably somewhat artificially constructed example in (2.32) using the verb schneiden ‘to cut’. It starts off in (2.32 a) as a basic transitive construction with a nominative and accusative argument. Yet, after various twists and turns it ends up on (2.32 g) with a nominative, two accusatives, a dative and an obligatory locational prepositional phrase.
| (2.32) | a. | Der Arzt schneidet den Nagel des Patienten. |
| b. | Der Arzt schneidet in den Nagel des Patienten. | |
| c. | Der Arzt schneidet dem Patienten in den Nagel. | |
| d. | Der Arzt schneidet dem Patienten einen Schlitz in den Nagel. | |
| e. | Der Arzt schneidet dem Patienten einen Schlitz in den Nagel mit dem Fräser. | |
| f. | Der Fräser schneidet dem Patienten einen Schlitz in den Nagel. | |
| g. | Der Assistent lässt den Fräser dem Patienten einen Schlitz in den Nagel schneiden. |
[2.57] Teasing this stack apart, there are six different diatheses, concurrently showing that the verb schneiden has at least six different lexeme-specific roles. As defined in Section 1.3.3, each role that appears as a case-marked constituent in at least one diathesis is a lexeme-specific role, and all of the following participants are case-marked in the stack of diatheses (2.32):
[2.58] The six diatheses (and the corresponding role-remappings) are the following:
[2.59] There are a few examples of diatheses that look like stacks of two diatheses, but on closer inspection it turns out that the intermediate construction does not exist. A few major examples of such fixed stacks are exemplified below.
[2.60] There is an infamous anticausative diathesis that needs a reflexive pronoun, which is attested for a large, but restricted group of verbs like schließen ‘to close’ (2.33 a,b), see Section 6.5.2. A completely different group of verbs also has an anticausative diathesis with a reflexive pronoun, but only with an additional evaluative adverbial. This is for example attested with verkaufen ‘to sell’ (2.33 c,d), see Section 8.5.2. In this case, the diathesis is marked by both the reflexive pronoun and the presence of an adverbial, and neither is possible without the other. Such a combination of two obligatorily co-occurring formal marking strategies is called a fixed stack.
| (2.33) | a. | Ich schließe die Tür. |
| b. | Die Tür schließt sich. | |
| c. | Ich verkaufe das Buch. | |
| d. | Das Buch verkauft sich gut. |
[2.61] Various diatheses between a bare verb, like fassen ‘to grasp’ (2.34 a), and a preverb-alternant, like befassen ‘to be concerned with’ (2.34 b), additionally need a reflexive pronoun, see Section 7.7.6. So here we have a fixed stack of a reflexive pronoun and a preverb together that mark the diathesis.
| (2.34) | a. | Ich fasse einen Entschluss. |
| b. | Ich befasse mich mit dem Entschluss. |
[2.62] Also some light verb alternations show fixed stacks. For example, there is a very widespread causative diathesis using the light verb lassen with an infinitive (2.35 b), see Section 10.6.2. Additionally, the combination of lassen + Infinitiv and a reflexive pronoun leads to an anticausative alternation (2.35 c), which does not make sense as being derived from the causative (2.35 b). It seems better to consider the combination of lassen + Infinitiv + Reflexiv as a fixed stack, see Section 10.5.3.
| (2.35) | a. | Der Schüler löst die Aufgabe. |
| b. | Der Lehrer lässt den Schüler die Aufgabe lösen. | |
| c. | Diese Aufgabe lässt sich lösen. |
[2.63] Similarly, the alternation using the light verb gehen + zu + Infinitiv necessarily needs an additional evaluative adverb or negation (2.36), see Section 11.5.7. The light verb construction does not seem possible without the adverbial (2.36 c).
| (2.36) | a. | Ich lösche die Dateien. | |
| b. | Die Dateien gehen leicht/schwer/nicht zu löschen. | ||
| c. | ? | Die Dateien gehen zu löschen. |
[2.64] Many diatheses just remap a single role. Such sole diatheses are called isolated diatheses here. However, there are also many diatheses in which more than one role is remapped. I distinguish the following kinds of role-remappings, of which only the first two are frequently attested.
[2.65] When two roles are remapped by a single diathesis it is surprisingly frequent for them to be chained. In a chained diathesis the resulting form of one remapping is the start of the second. This can be conceptualised as a ‘push’ chain in which one remapping induces another because German grammar strongly disprefers multiple constituents of the same kind (e.g. two accusatives) in the same clause.
[2.66] Chained diatheses typically occur when the nominative subject is involved in the diathesis. There can only be a single nominative subject in a German clause, and it is highly unusual to have a sentence without a nominative subject. This implies that any diathesis involving the nominative subject typically includes two remappings, namely one from something else to nominative and a second remapping of the erstwhile nominative to something else.
[2.67] A prototypical example of a chained diathesis involving the nominative subject is the werden passive (2.37). Here, the erstwhile accusative Kuchen ‘cake’ is turned into a nominative, while the erstwhile nominative Lehrling ‘apprentice’ is removed (or optionally retained as a von prepositional phrase). So, we have a chain consisting of the role-remappings [obj › sbj] and [sbj › adj].
| (2.37) | [obj › sbj › adj] | |
| a. | Der Lehrling backt den Kuchen. | |
| b. | Der Kuchen wird gebacken (von den Lehrling). | |
[2.68] Diatheses without involvement of the nominative subject are more flexible, in that both isolated and chained diatheses are common. A typical example of a chained diathesis is a full applicative induces by the preverb be- (2.38). In this example, a prepositional phrase für ihre Freundin ‘for her friend’ is remapped to an accusative [adj › obj] while the erstwhile accusative Essen ‘food’ is turned into a prepositional phrase [obj › adj].
| (2.38) | [adj › obj › adj] | |
| a. | Sie kochte kubanisches Essen für ihre Freundin. | |
| b. | Sie bekocht ihre Freundin mit kubanischem Essen. | |
[2.69] Among chained diatheses there is a group of frequently recurring remapping patterns. Because of their frequency, it is highly useful to give them specific names. Such names are widespread in the literature, e.g. anticausative for [obj › sbj › ø] or passive for [obj › sbj › adj]. A survey of the various names used in this book will be pursued in Section 2.7.
[2.70] multi-chained diatheses consist of combinations of more than two role-remappings that occur in a sequence. This occurs frequently as the result of a stack of multiple diatheses, but only very rarely in a single diathesis. As an example arising from a stack of multiple diatheses consider taking a verb like lesen ‘to read’ (2.39 a) and applying a stack of two diatheses (2.39 b,c). This leads to a chain of three role-remappings. First, the preverb diathesis with vor- (2.39 b) leads to the addition of a dative argument dem Jungen, i.e. a role-remapping [ø › obj], see Section 7.8.6. On top of that, the bekommen dative passive (2.39 c) promotes this dative to subject and removes the original subject, i.e. a role-remapping [obj › sbj › ø], see Section 9.5.19. Combined, these two diatheses lead to a role-remapping [ø › obj › sbj › ø].
| (2.39) | [ø › obj › sbj › ø] | |
| a. | Der Vater hat ein Buch gelesen. | |
| b. | Der Vater hat dem Jungen ein Buch vorgelesene. | |
| c. | Der Junge bekommt ein Buch vorgelesen. | |
[2.71] Such multi-chained diatheses resulting from diathesis-stacking are widespread. However, I know of only two diatheses with a multi-chain that cannot be decomposed into a stack of separate diatheses. Both these ‘fixed’ multi-chain diatheses appear to occur with just a few idiosyncratic verbs, so this phenomenon really seems to be dispreferred in German.
[2.72] First, the preverb diathesis from erben ‘to inherit’ to enterben ‘to disinherit’ (2.40), see Section 7.6.9, contains three linked role-remappings for (i) the originator of the inheritance Vater ‘father’ [adj › sbj], (ii) the receiver of the inheritance Junge ‘boy’ [sbj › obj] and (iii) the inheritance Schreibtisch ‘desk’ [obj › ø].
| (2.40) | [adj › sbj › obj › ø] | |
| a. | Der Junge erbt den Schreibtisch von seinem Vater. | |
| b. | Sein Vater enterbt den Jungen. | |
[2.73] Second, the verb schmecken ‘to taste’ (2.41), see Section 5.5.6, allows for two different constructions with three linked role-remappings for (i) the tasted substance Pfefferminze ‘peppermint’ [obj › adj], (ii) the tasted dish Suppe ‘soup’ [adj › sbj] and (iii) the taster Koch ‘cook’ [sbj › ø].
| (2.41) | [obj › adj › sbj › ø] | |
| a. | Der Koch schmeckt die Pfefferminze in der Suppe. | |
| b. | Die Suppe schmeckt nach Pfefferminze | |
[2.74] disjunct diatheses consist of a combination of multiple role-remappings that are not linked to each other. Just as with the multi-chained diatheses from the previous section, disjunct diatheses regularly occur as the result of stacking of diatheses. In contrast, they are very rare in individual diatheses.
[2.75] When multiple diatheses are stacked, i.e. whey they are applied sequentially on top of each other, they are often structurally independent. For example, the verb waschen ‘to wash’ (2.42 a) can be used in a resultative construction (2.42 b) in which the role of washee Hemd ‘shirt’ is turned from an accusative into a location [obj › pbj] and a new accusative object is introduced for the role of the result Fleck ‘stain’ [ø › obj], see Section 5.8.7. Independent of this chained diathesis, the possessor of the object Nachbar ‘neighbour’ can be raised to genitive (2.42 c), see Section 5.8.11.
| (2.42) | [ø › obj › pbj; adj › obj] | |
| a. | Ich wasche das Hemd des Nachbarn. | |
| b. | Ich wasche den Fleck aus dem Hemd des Nachbarn. | |
| c. | Ich wasche dem Nachbarn den Fleck aus dem Hemd. | |
[2.76] There are only a few incidental examples of such disjunct diatheses without stacking. The following four examples all only occur with a very limited number of verbs. First, the verb deuten can be used both the mean ‘interpret’ (2.43 a) and ‘forebode’ (2.43 b) with a rather transparent connection between the two. However, the role-remappings are quite complex, see Section 5.5.11.
| (2.43) | [ø › pbj; obj › sbj › ø] | |
| a. | Ich deute den Traum. | |
| b. | Der Traum deutet auf nichts Gutes. | |
[2.77] Second, some preverbs lead to disjunct diatheses, like with schweigen ‘to remain silent’ and verschweigen ‘to conceal’ (2.44), see Section 7.8.14.
| (2.44) | [adj › obj; pbj › obj] | |
| a. | Ich schweige zu dir über meinen Besuch. | |
| b. | Ich verschweige dir meinen Besuch. | |
[2.78] Further examples are resultatives for a few verbs of naming like schimpfen ‘to scold’ (2.45), see Section 5.8.8. The disjunct diathesis in (2.46) is less clear, as it might be better analysed as a stack, see Section 5.5.3.
| (2.45) | [ø › obj; adj › obj] | |
| a. | Sie schimpft auf mich. | |
| b. | Sie schimpft mich einen Narren | |
| (2.46) | [ø › obj; sbj › adj] | |
| a. | Der Sommer ist kalt. | |
| b. | Mir ist kalt im Sommer. | |
[2.79] The only somewhat more widespread disjunct diathesis is the resultative construction that can arise with some apparently intransitive verbs like schwitzen ‘to sweat’ (2.47). This diathesis introduces two roles at once: a result Fleck ‘stain’ and an obligatory location Hemd ‘shirt’, see Section 5.8.4.
| (2.47) | [ø › obj; ø › pbj] | |
| a. | Ich schwitze. | |
| b. | Ich schwitze einen Fleck in meinem Hemd. | |
[2.80] Throughout the introductory chapters, I have used various names for diatheses, like passive, antipassive, applicative or causative. These names have a long history in the typological grammatical literature (cf. Mel’čuk 1993; Wunderlich 1993; Wunderlich 2015; Dixon & Aikhenvald 2000; Dixon 2014; Haspelmath & Müller-Bardey 2004; Kulikov 2011; Malchukov 2015: 96ff.; Zúñiga & Kittilä 2019). Although I have been using these terms as if their meaning is clear, this is often far from the case. Many different terms and definitions have been proposed in the literature, and different terms have at times been used for the same phenomena. For example, the original proposal for the term ‘antipassive’ is already 50 years old (Silverstein 1972: 395), but the same phenomenon is also known as deaccusative (Geniušė 1987: 94) or antiapplicative (Haspelmath & Müller-Bardey 2004: 1132; Scheibl 2006: 371). Reversely, antipassive is also attested referring to a slightly different phenomenon of the drop of an object (Scheibl 2006: 372-373).
[2.81] In this section I will describe in more detail how these names are used and defined in the current book about German diatheses. The names for diatheses will here always refer to a macrorole pattern, i.e. to the highly abstract classification of a diathesis in terms of sbj, obj, etc. as defined in Section 2.4.2. For example, the term ‘anticausative’ will be used as a name for the macrorole pattern [obj › sbj › ø]. Such macrorole patterns are strictly defined here in a language-specific way for German, so care should be taken when applying the same names to different languages.
[2.82] One widespread term that I will avoid is the term ‘middle’ (and likewise the Latinate equivalent term ‘medium’). This term for a diathesis is already attested as μεσότης in the oldest known Greek grammatical text, the τέχνη γραμματική of Dionysius Thrax, and it has become a mainstay in the grammatical literature ever since.8 The phenomena that are called ‘middle’ in the literature are highly variable, and there is no consensus about what kind of diathesis this term is supposed to designate, other than something that is neither active nor passive (see Zúñiga & Kittilä 2019: 168-177 for a thorough summary of the complex philological history of the term middle/medium). Such a broad and ill-defined term is not useful for a detailed analysis of the large variety of attested role-remappings in German.
[2.83] The discussion about the different names for macrorole patterns will be split into four parts. First, the following two sections will present names for diatheses involving the nominative subject. Subsequent sections will discuss diatheses not involving the subject. In both discussions, a central distinction will be made between isolated diatheses and chained diatheses (see Section 2.6).
[2.84] Isolated diatheses that involve a nominative subject are not widespread in German. The only clearly attested kind is the drop of the subject [sbj › ø], i.e. the complete removal of the role marked as nominative subject without any further accompanying role-remapping or reintroduction of a new subject. This is typically attested with intransitive verbs: after removing the single available role, there is no other role introduced to fill the structural subject position. Semantically, such diatheses put the focus on the activity as described by the verb itself, so I propose to call them verbative diatheses. Note that there is a strong tendency for every German sentence to formally have a nominative subject with verb agreement. Consequently, such verbative diatheses almost always result in the presence of a valency-simulating nominative pronoun es (see Section 2.2.3).
[2.85] A verbative diathesis is attested with verbs like stinken ‘to stink’ (2.48), see Section 4.5.1. In a sentence like es stinkt the pronoun es can of course simply be an anaphor, like in (2.48 b). In such a sentence, the role of ‘stinker’ is still present and there is no diathesis at all. However, in other contexts (2.48 c) the verb stinken is used without implied subject. This is typically attested in contexts in which some odour is attested, but the originator is not known.
| (2.48) | verbative [sbj › ø] | |
| a. | Der Müll stinkt. | |
| b. | Das schmutzige Tuch, es stinkt! | |
| c. | Hier stinkt es. | |
[2.86] Another example of a verbative diathesis is illustrated with the verb leben ‘to live’ (2.49). Many sich intransitive verbs can be used without a subject in a habitual sense, but this is only possible with an obligatory adverbial qualification like gut (2.49 b,c), see Section 8.5.1.
| (2.49) | verbative [sbj › ø] | ||
| a. | Ich lebe in diesem Haus. | ||
| b. | In diesem Haus lebt es sich gut. | ||
| c. | * | In diesem Haus lebt es sich. | |
[2.87] Also the so-called impersonal passive consisting of werden + Partizip (2.50) is an example of a verbative diathesis, in this case even without any valency-simulating es, see Section 9.5.1.
| (2.50) | verbative [sbj › ø] | ||
| a. | Die Jungs tanzen hier. | ||
| b. | Hier wird getanzt. | ||
| c. | * | Hier wird es getanzt. | |
[2.88] A different kind of isolated subject diathesis is subject demotion of the nominative subject to a prepositional phrase. An example is the geben + zu + Infinitiv (2.51), see Section 11.5.4. In this diathesis, the subject is demoted to an optional non-governed prepositional phrase [sbj › adj].
| (2.51) | subject demotion [sbj › adj] | |
| a. | Wir gewinnen einen Preis. | |
| b. | es gibt (für uns) einen Preis zu gewinnen. | |
[2.89] Most isolated diatheses are only attested in incidental examples in German, like a subject demotion to a governed preposition [sbj › pbj] with fehlen shown in (2.52), see Section 5.5.2.
| (2.52) | subject demotion [sbj › pbj] | |
| a. | Das Geld fehlt ihm. | |
| b. | Ihm fehlt es an Geld. | |
[2.90] Isolated subject addition [ø › sbj] is very rare in German, partly because it would need an unmarked construction without any subject to start off with. A possible example is the addition of a subject that seems possible with some weather verbs like donnern ‘to thunder’ (2.53), see Section 4.6.1.
| (2.53) | subject addition [ø › sbj] | |
| a. | Es donnert. | |
| b. | Die Motoren donnerten. | |
[2.91] Chained diatheses that involve the nominative subject are widespread in German (in contrast to the infrequent occurrence of isolated diatheses as discussed previously). Figure 2.2 presents an overview of the different terms that I will use for these diatheses. The bold-faced terms are used for widely attested diatheses, while the other kinds of diatheses are only incidentally found. There is currently no evidence in German for the remappings that are left empty in the figure. There appears to be a preference for various kinds of demotion (i.e. the upper right corner of the figure), which fits nicely with the known typological preference of German for anticausative constructions (Haspelmath 1993: 101; Nichols, Peterson & Barnes 2004: 189).
[2.92] The upper right triangle of Figure 2.2 are demotions, the lower left triangle are promotions, and the diagonal are examples of symmetrical diatheses. I will discuss all types in this order.
[2.93] The most extreme kind of demotion is an anticausative [obj › sbj › ø]. The typical characteristic of an anticausative is the complete removal of the nominative subject that is the causer of the action/state of the clause. Filling the syntactic gap, a case-marked argument (typically the accusative) is promoted to subject. This is a widespread kind of diathesis. An example is the reflexive anticausative with verb like schliessen ‘to close’ (2.54), see Section 6.5.2.
| (2.54) | anticausative [obj › sbj › ø] | |
| a. | Ich schließe die Tür. | |
| b. | Die Tür schließt sich (von alleine). | |
[2.94] Very similar an anticausative is the passive [obj › sbj › adj]. The main difference between the two (a distinction which is often difficult to delimit) is that for a passive the original subject is still implied and can optionally be overtly expressed (2.55). In contrast, for an anticausative the original subject is completely removed and a phrase like “by itself” can typically be added. As an example of a passive diathesis in (2.55) is the bekommen Rezipientenpassiv in which a dative is promoted to subject Section 9.5.19
| (2.55) | passive [obj › sbj › adj] | |
| a. | Ihr Freund kocht ihr eine Suppe. | |
| b. | Sie bekommt von ihrem Freund eine Suppe gekocht. | |
[2.95] A conversive [obj › sbj › pbj] looks similar to a passive, except that the prepositional phrase is a lexically governed preposition, so it has a more object-like grammatical status. An example is the verb empören ‘to appall’ (2.56 a) with the reflexive diathesis sich empören über ‘to be outraged about’ (2.56 b,c), see Section 6.5.8. The term conversive is adapted from Kulikov (2011: 380).
| (2.56) | conversive [obj › sbj › pbj] | |
| a. | Der Preis empört den Kunden. | |
| b. | Der Kunde empört sich über den Preis. | |
| c. | Der Kunde empört sich darüber, dass der Preis schon wieder gestiegen ist. | |
[2.96] For the next diathesis, I propose the term fabricative [pbj › sbj › ø] based on Lat. fabrica ‘plan, trick, workmanship’. This term is used for a diathesis in German in which a fabricated product can be expressed either as a governed prepositional phrase or as a nominative subject. This diathesis occurs for example with various verbs of emotional interactions like überraschen ‘to surprise’ (2.57 a), see Section 5.5.7. To understand this diathesis, a distinction is needed between the role of the ‘fabricator’ (here: Lehrer, ‘teacher’) and the role of the ‘fabricated product’, which induces the emotion (here: Aufgabe, ‘assignment’). The mit prepositional phrase that expresses the fabricated product in (2.57 a) is a governed preposition (2.57 c). The diathesis promotes this fabricated product to nominative subject and the fabricator is removed from the expression (2.57 b). The experiencer in the accusative mich remains unchanged.
| (2.57) | fabricative [pbj › sbj › ø] | |
| a. | Der Lehrer überraschst mich mit seiner Aufgabe. | |
| b. | Die Aufgabe überrascht mich. | |
| c. | Der Lehrer überrascht mich damit, dass er die Aufgabe schon korrigiert hat. | |
[2.97] A similar kind of diathesis is called here a conciliative [adj › sbj › ø] based on Lat. conciliator ‘intermediary, mediator’. In a conciliative an external object (typically an instrument) is promoted to subject (2.58), see Section 5.5.5. The conciliative and fabricative in German both regularly use a prepositional phrase with mit, but the grammatical status is clearly different. The mit phrase in a conciliative is an optional adjunct (2.58), while the mit phrase in a fabricative is a governed preposition (2.57). This grammatical difference is paralleled by a functional difference in the role that is promoted to subject: a conciliative concerns a (typically tangible) instrument that is used by an agent, while a fabricative promotes a (typically intangible) creation that is produced by the agent.
| (2.58) | conciliative [adj › sbj › ø] | |
| a. | Der Doktor heilt die Wunde mit einer Salbe. | |
| b. | Die Salbe heilt die Wunde. | |
[2.98] The most widespread promotion to subject attested in German is the diathesis with role-remapping [ø › sbj › obj], called novative here (based on Lat. novare ‘renew, refresh, change’). This role-remapping is best known as ‘causative’, but this semantic characterisation does not hold for all examples of this diathesis. Various other novative diatheses exist in which the new nominative is not a causer but an experiencer, opionator or a permission giver.
[2.99] Semantically, the most widespread kind of novative adds a new causer to the construction, like with the diatheses between brennen ‘to burn (intransitive)’ and verbrennen ‘to burn (transitive)’ (2.59), see Section 7.6.1. Such a diathesis is aptly called a causative.
| (2.59) | causative novative [ø › sbj › obj] | |
| a. | Der Tisch brennt. | |
| b. | Ich verbrenne den Tisch. | |
[2.100] The sehen + Infinitiv diathesis (2.60), see Section 10.6.6, adds a new nominative subject and the old nominative is turned into an accusative. This diathesis is thus structurally an example of a novative [ø › sbj › obj]. However, the newly added nominative is not a causer. The new role is better described as an experiencer, so this diathesis can semantically be called an experientive. Similarly constructions are also attested with light-verbs hören, fühlen, and spüren.
| (2.60) | experientive novative [ø › sbj › obj] | |
| a. | Der Junge putzt den Tisch. | |
| b. | Ich sehe den Jungen den Tisch putzen. | |
[2.101] The glauben + Partizip diathesis (2.61), see Section 9.6.2 similarly adds a new nominative subject while the old nominative is turned into an accusative. The role of the new nominative is best characterised as somebody having an opinion, so this diathesis can semantically be called an opiniative. The main verb is typically a patientive intransitive predicate like einschlafen, ‘to fall asleep’, see Section 9.2.6. Similar constructions also exist with light-verbs wissen, sehen and finden.
| (2.61) | opiniative novative [ø › sbj › obj] | |
| a. | Der Junge schläft ein. | |
| b. | Ich glaube den Jungen eingeschlafen. | |
[2.102] Likewise, the lassen + Infinitiv diathesis (2.62), see Section 10.6.2 is also structurally a novative [ø › sbj › obj]. This diathesis has multiple possible interpretations, among them also a causative reading (2.62). However, in the example in (2.63) the newly added nominative is allowing the action to happen, not causing it, so this diathesis can semantically be called a permissive. This second interpretation typically happens with agentive intransitive predicates like schlafen ‘to sleep’, see Section 9.2.6.
| (2.62) | causative novative [ø › sbj › obj] | |
| a. | Der Junge schläft ein. | |
| b. | Ich lasse den Jungen einschlafen. (= Ich sorge dafür, dass der Junge einschläft.) |
|
| (2.63) | permissive novative [ø › sbj › obj] | |
| a. | Der Junge schläft. | |
| b. | Ich lasse den Jungen schlafen. (= Ich erlaube, das der Junge weiter schläft.) |
|
[2.103] Finally, the lehren/helfen + Infinitiv diathesis (2.64), see Section 10.6.12, is a novative in which the role of the new subject is more of an assistant than a real causative. Therefor it is called here an assistive novative. Note that both lehren and helfen can also be used with zu + Infinitiv, but then the constructions are not coherent, so those constructions are not included among the diatheses.
| (2.64) | assistive novative [ø › sbj › obj] | |
| a. | Der Sohn faltet die Wäsche. | |
| b. | Der Vater lehrt seinen Sohn die Wäsche falten. | |
[2.104] All other promotions are rare. A reversed passive [adj › sbj › obj] demotes the subject to object and at the same time promotes a new subject from an erstwhile adjunct role. An example in German is the diathesis from erben ‘to inherit’ to enterben ‘to disinherit’ (2.65 a,b), see Section 7.6.9. This is semantically very close to a causative [ø › sbj › obj], in which the newly introduced causer can sometimes be expressed as an adjunct (2.65 c,d). This affinity between a reversed passive and a causative is reminiscent of the affinity between a passive and an anticausative. In both pairs, the difference amounts to a switch between the closely related macro-role of an optional adjunct (adj) and being completely unexpressed (ø).
| (2.65) | reversed passive [adj › sbj › obj] | |
| a. | Ich erbe den Schreibtisch von meinem Vater. | |
| b. | Mein Vater enterbt mich. | |
| c. | Der Wettkampf endet (durch den Gong). | |
| d. | Der Gong beendet den Wettkampf. | |
[2.105] A reversed conversive [pbj › sbj › obj] differs from a reversed passive in that the prepositional phrase is a lexically governed preposition, as can be identified by a possible da+preposition, dass … paraphrase. This is for example attested for the diatheses between staunen über ‘to marvel’ and erstaunen ‘to amaze’ (2.66), see Section 7.6.10.
| (2.66) | reversed conversive [pbj › sbj › obj] | |
| a. | Ich staune über deine Arbeit. | |
| b. | Deine Arbeit erstaunt mich. | |
| c. | Ich staune darüber, dass du schon fertig bist. | |
[2.106] The novative with extended demotion [ø › sbj › pbj] is extremely rare in German. The name is adapted from Kulikov (2011: 388). The diathesis between freuen ‘to be pleased’ and erfreuen ‘to please’ (2.67) might be an example, see Section 7.6.8.
| (2.67) | novative with extended demotion [ø › sbj › pbj] | |
| a. | Das Geschenk freut mich. | |
| b. | Er erfreut mich mit einem Geschenk. | |
[2.107] Finally, a novative with extreme demotion [ø › sbj › adj] almost completely removes the erstwhile subject. This is attested in an interesting group of constructions using light verbs like finden with a participle and a transitive main verb like aufheben ‘to preserve’ (2.68), see Section 9.6.8. With this diathesis, there is a new opiniator introduced, just like with the opiniative above (see paragraph 2.101). However, the erstwhile nominative subject is now demoted to an optional prepositional phrase.
| (2.68) | novative with extreme demotion [ø › sbj › adj] | |
| a. | Das Archiv hebt den Nachlass auf. | |
| b. | Ich finde den Nachlass (im Archiv) gut aufgehoben. | |
[2.108] Completely symmetrical diatheses involving the subject are rare in German. An inversive [obj › sbj › obj] is a diathesis that switches subject and object. This term is proposed by Malchukov (2015: 99-100) in reminiscence of the so-called ‘inverse’ marking found in Algonquian languages. An inversive diathesis is designated as a “symmetric conversive” by Kulikov (2011: 380). An example of an inversive is the diathesis between wundern ‘to puzzle’ and bewundern ‘to admire’ (2.69), see Section 7.9.1.
| (2.69) | inversive [obj › sbj › obj] | |
| a. | Dein Verhalten wundert mich. | |
| b. | Ich bewundere dein Verhalten. | |
[2.109] Much more widespread in German are diatheses in which a nominative/accusative construction is inverted into a dative/nominative construction. This is for example attested for the bleiben + zu + Infinitiv diathesis (2.70), see Section 11.9.1. Because dative and accusative are both classified here as obj, this counts as an inversive diathesis. However, when a separation between core (accusative) and non-core (dative/genitive) case would be pursued (see paragraph 2.37), then this diathesis would be an example of demotion. There are two remappings, namely down from sbj to non-core obj and up from core obj to sbj. When non-core is taken as being lower on the macrorole hierarchy (2.27) then the biggest jump is the jump down, which is the definition of demotion (see Section 2.4.2). Instead of adding a completely new set of categories I propose to simply split inversive and call this phenomenon demoted inversive.
| (2.70) | demoted inversive [obj › sbj › obj] | |
| a. | Ich räume den letzten Schrank ein. | |
| b. | Dieser letzte Schrank bleibt mir noch einzuräumen. | |
[2.110] The opposite promoted inversive promotes a dative/genitive into a nominative subject, and demotes the erstwhile nominative to an accusative. This is illustrated with the haben + Infinitiv diathesis in (2.71), see Section 10.9.2.
| (2.71) | promoted inversive [obj › sbj › obj] | |
| a. | Ein Tropfen hängt ihm an der Nase. | |
| b. | Er hat einen Tropfen an der Nase hängen. | |
[2.111] At the other extreme, a commutative [ø › sbj › ø] complete removes the old subject and introduces a completely new role as subject. I propose this term on the basis of Lat. commutare ‘exchange, replace’. A German example of such a diathesis is the geben + Partizip construction (2.101), see Section 9.9.4
| (2.72) | commutative [ø › sbj › ø] | |
| a. | Irgendjemand verliert den Ring. | |
| b. | Ich gebe den Ring verloren. | |
[2.112] The two other symmetrical diatheses in between the two extremes are even rarer. A preposition inversive [pbj › sbj › pbj] is similar to an inversive, but the exchange is with a governed preposition. This is arguably attested in the diathesis between strahlen ‘to shine’ and erstrahlen ‘to gleam’ (8.22), see Section 7.9.2.
| (2.73) | preposition inversive [pbj › sbj › pbj] | |
| a. | Die Sonne strahlt auf das Haus. | |
| b. | Das Haus erstrahlt in der Sonne. | |
[2.113] Finally, an example of an adjunct commutative [adj › sbj › adj] is possibly attested with the verb wimmeln ‘to swarm’ (2.74), see Section 5.9.1.
| (2.74) | adjunct commutative [adj › sbj › adj] | |
| a. | Die Kinder wimmeln auf den Platz. | |
| b. | Der Platz wimmelt von Kindern. | |
[2.114] The situation with object diatheses is reversed from the previously discussed subject diatheses. With object diatheses, isolated diatheses are much more widespread and they occur with a wide variety of role-remappings, see Figure 2.3. In contrast, chained diatheses are less widespread and can mostly be analysed as a combination of multiple isolated diatheses.
[2.115] The top left diatheses in Figure 2.3 are demotions, while the bottom left ones are promotions. The bottom right is completely empty because these remappings are not diatheses anymore, but simply optional marking. There is a strong tendency for object demotions to be either unmarked or marked by reflexive pronouns in German, while the object promotions are typically marked by preverbs or obligatory adverbs. The exception to this generalisation are the so-called locative and delocative diatheses. With those, promotions (locatives) are formally unmarked, while demotions (delocatives) are marked by preverbs or obligatory adverbs. I have currently no explanation for this rather clear markedness pattern.
[2.116] I will discuss the different role-remappings from Figure 2.3 in four subsections. First, I will look at the various kinds of applicatives and antipassives (mid left and mid top), then at the objectives and deobjectives (top right and left bottom), followed by locative and delocative diatheses (mid bottom and mid right), and finally at the symmetrical exchanges (on the diagonal).
[2.117] Applicatives and antipassives are very similar, though reversed. applicatives [adj › obj] change a prepositional phrase into a case-marked phrase, while antipassives [obj › adj] convert a case-marked phrase into a prepositional phrase. Given this affinity, instead of ‘antipassive’ it might be better to call such remappings ‘antiapplicative’ (e.g. Haspelmath & Müller-Bardey 2004: 1132). However, because the name ‘antipassive’ is already strongly entrenched in the grammatical literature, I decided not to add to the naming-confusion any more.
[2.118] Applicatives occur frequently with the addition of a preverb, like in the alternation between steigen auf ‘to climb’ and besteigen ‘to mount’ (2.75), see Section 7.8.10.
| (2.75) | applicative [adj › obj] | |
| a. | Sie steigt auf den Berg. | |
| b. | Sie besteigt den Berg. | |
[2.119] Antipassives in German are often unmarked (see further below), but an example of an antipassive with a clear direction is the alternation between treffen ‘to meet’ and reflexive sich treffen mit ’to meet with (2.76), see Section 6.7.4.
| (2.76) | antipassive [obj › adj] | |
| a. | Ich treffe dich. | |
| b. | Ich treffe mich mit dir. | |
[2.120] The object of applicatives and antipassives is typically an accusative, but datives are also attested. An example of a dative applicative is the alternation between stammen aus ‘to hail from’ and entstammen ‘to be descended from’ (2.77), see Section 7.8.16. An example of a dative antipassive is the covert alternation of berichten ‘to report’ (2.78), see Section 5.7.9.
| (2.77) | dative applicative [adj › obj] | |
| a. | Ich stamme aus einem Adelsgeschlecht. | |
| b. | Ich entstamme einem Adelsgeschlecht | |
| (2.78) | dative antipassive [obj › adj] | |
| a. | Er berichtet dem Vorstand alles. | |
| b. | Er berichtet alles an den Vorstand. | |
[2.121] In the discussion of diatheses in this book I consistently distinguish governed applicatives [pbj › obj] and governed antipassives [obj › pbj] when the prepositional phrase is a governed preposition. An example of a governed applicative is the diathesis between arbeiten an ‘to work on’ (with a governed preposition an) and bearbeiten ‘to edit, adapt’ (2.79), see Section 7.8.11. An example of a governed antipassive is the diathesis between beklagen ‘to lament’ and sich beklagen ‘to complain’ (with a governed preposition über) (2.80), see Section 6.7.5. However, the differentiation between the governed and non-governed applicative/antipassive does not currently allow for any promising semantic of structural generalisations, so this differentiation might grammatically be unnecessary. I have indicated this close affinity graphically in Figure 2.3 by surrounding thick lines.
| (2.79) | governed applicative [pbj › obj] | |
| a. | Ich arbeite an dem Text. Ich arbeite daran, dass der Text fertig wird. |
|
| b. | Ich bearbeite den Text. | |
| (2.80) | governed antipassives [obj › pbj] | |
| a. | Ich beklage den Lärm. Ich beklage mich über den Lärm. |
|
| b. | Ich beklage mich darüber, dass es so laut ist. | |
[2.122] There are a many diatheses with a role-remapping between adjunct and object that do not have any overt indication of a direction. Without explicit marking it is difficult to decide whether such diatheses are cases of (applicative) promotion [adj › obj] or (antipassive) demotion [obj › adj]. For the sake of organisation in this book I classify such covert alternations on the basis of (debatable) semantic intuitions.
[2.123] Most covert diatheses with an alternation between prepositional phrases and case-marked arguments are classified here as antipassive, like in the alternation between schießen auf ‘to aim at’ and schießen ‘to shoot’ (2.81 a), see Section 5.7.6. This is also widespread with datives (2.81 b), see Section 5.7.9. In such examples, I judge the case-marking to be more basic than the prepositional phrase. In contrast, there is a widespread alternation between datives and für prepositional phrases (2.81), that I classify as an applicative, see Section 5.8.9. In this example the dative seems to be the derived construction.
| (2.81) | covert antipassive [obj › adj] | |
| a. | Ich schieße den Bären. Ich schieße auf den Bären. |
|
| b. | Ich schreibe dir einen Brief. Ich schreibe einen Brief an dich. |
|
| (2.82) | covert applicative (benefactor raising) [adj › obj] | |
| a. | Er kocht eine Suppe für mich. | |
| b. | Er kocht mir eine Suppe. | |
[2.124] There is a further kind of covert diathesis with a dative object, conventionally called possessor raising. In such diatheses there is an alternation between a possessor (typically expressed as an adnominal genitive) and a dative (2.83). The dative can alternate with the possessor of a nominative subject (see Section 4.8.3), an accusative object (see Section 4.8.4) or a location (see Section 5.8.10). Following convention, I classify these diatheses as promotion [adj › obj]
| (2.83) | covert applicative (possessor raising) [adj › obj] | |
| a. | Er schneidet meine Haare. | |
| b. | Er schneidet mir die Haare. | |
[2.125] These two covert kinds of dative applicative are semantically and structurally clearly distinct. The datives that show a possessive alternation (2.83) are semantically experiencers. In contrast, datives that alternate with für prepositional phrases (2.82) are semantically benefactors. In especially crafted context it is possible to evoke either reading for the same sentence, (2.84).
| (2.84) | a. | ? | Ich schneide dir (zuliebe) in den (meinen) Finger. (= Ich schneide für dich in meinen Finger.) |
| b. | Ich schneide dir in den (deinen) Finger. (= Ich schneide in deinen Finger.) |
[2.126] A deobjective diathesis [obj › ø] is a diathesis that drops an object, i.e. a role cannot be expressed anymore (the term is taken from Haspelmath & Müller-Bardey 2004: 1131). A deobjective drop is illustrated in (2.85) with an alternation from kaufen ‘to buy’ to einkaufen ‘to shop’, see Section 7.7.1 for an extensive discussion.
| (2.85) | deobjective [obj › ø] | |
| a. | Ich habe gestern ein Buch gekauft. | |
| b. | Ich habe gestern eingekauft. | |
[2.127] A special variant of a deobjective occurs with verbs that apply to the body, like verbrennen ‘to burn’ (2.86). In such constructions, a reflexive pronoun is necessary. This diathesis is called endoreflexive (Haspelmath 1987: 27-28), see Section 6.7.1 for an extensive discussion.
| (2.86) | deobjective (endoreflexive) [obj › ø] | |
| a. | Er verbrennt das Buch. | |
| b. | Er verbrennt sich. | |
[2.128] An objective diathesis [ø › obj] is a diathesis that adds a new object, i.e. a completely new role is introduced in the form of an object. An example of an overtly marked object addition is the alternation from zaubern ‘to perform magic’ to verzaubern ‘to enchant’ (2.87). Additions are frequently attested with preverbs like ver-, see Section 7.8.1.
| (2.87) | objective [ø › obj] | |
| a. | Sie zaubert. | |
| b. | Sie verzaubert mich. | |
[2.129] A semantically special subgroup of object additions are resultatives. A resultative diatheses adds an object that is the result of performing the predicate.9 An overtly marked resultative is illustrated in (2.88) with the diathesis between arbeiten ‘to work’ and the inherent reflexive sich etwas erarbeiten ‘to acquire something through work’, see Section 7.8.7. The result of the work is added as an object in (2.88 b).
| (2.88) | objective (resultative) [ø › obj] | |
| a. | Ich arbeite. | |
| b. | Ich erarbeite mir ein Vermögen. (= Ich arbeite, und dadurch habe ich ein Vermögen.) |
|
[2.130] Objectives and deobjectives are frequently attested without any overt marking (cf. ambitransitive/labile verbs), and in such ‘covert’ diatheses it is difficult to establish a direction. As already noted in the previous section, for the sake of organisation in this book I classify such covert alternations on the basis of (often debatable) semantic intuitions. For example, the verb stören ‘to disturb’ (2.89) can be used both with and without an accusative object, see Section 4.7.1. This is classified here as a deobjective diathesis. Such unmarked object drops are also attested with datives, see Section 4.7.4, and with governed prepositions, see Section 5.7. The dropping of an object is also often possible to put the focus on the action itself, but then it is typically used with an adverbial, see Section 8.7.1 for an extensive discussion.
| (2.89) | covert deobjective [obj › ø] | |
| a. | Du störst die Veranstaltung. | |
| b. | Du störst. | |
[2.131] In contrast, the verb stottern ‘to stutter’ is classified here as an example of object addition (2.90), although there is no formal differentiation from the previous example with object drop (2.89). The intuition is that stottern is basically intransitive (and any object is thus added), while stören is basically transitive (and any missing object is thus dropped). Correlated with this proposed difference is the fact that covert object addition with stottern has a resultative interpretation (2.90 b). However, it remains to be seen whether there is really a difference between these two kinds of verbs (see Section 4.8.1 for an extensive discussion).
| (2.90) | covert objective (resultative) [ø › obj] | |
| a. | Er stotterte. | |
| b. | Er stotterte eine Entschuldigung. (= Er stotterte, und das Resultat ist eine Entschuldigung.) |
|
[2.132] A locative diathesis [ø › pbj] is a diatheses that adds an obligatory locational propositional phrase pbj to the clause.10 For example, the transitive befehlen ‘to order’ marks the ordered person as an accusative (2.91 a). With an (directional) locative phrase an die Front ‘to the frontline’ the sentence gets a caused-motion or resultative reading (2.91 b), see Section 5.8.5.
| (2.91) | locative (caused motion) [ø › pbj] | |
| a. | Ich befehle eine Armee. | |
| b. | Ich befehle die Armee an die Front. (= Ich befehle, und dadurch geht die Armee an die Front.) |
|
[2.133] Even more noteworthy, such a locative diathesis is also possible with many intransitive verbs like schwitzen ‘to sweat’ (2.92 a). With such verbs, a locative diathesis not only adds a location, like in meinem Hemd ‘in my shirt’, but also an resultative accusative object, like einen Fleck ‘a stain’ (2.92 b), see Section 5.8.4.
| (2.92) | locative (resultative) [ø › pbj, ø › obj] | |
| a. | Ich schwitze. | |
| b. | Ich schwitze einen Fleck in meinem Hemd. (= Ich schwitze, und dadurch ist ein Fleck in meinem Hemd.) |
|
[2.134] The reversal of a locative diathesis is a delocative diathesis [pbj › ø]. In such a diathesis an obligatory location loses its obligatory status. An example of such a diathesis is shown in (2.93) with the alternation between stecken ‘to put into’ and verstecken ‘to hide’. The verb stecken needs an obligatory location (2.93 a,b). Such an obligatory location is classified here as a prepositional object pbj (see Section 2.2.2). The situation is different with the verb verstecken. With this verb the location is an optional adjunct and can be left out (see Section 7.7.11 for an extensive discussion).
| (2.93) | delocative [pbj › ø] | ||
| a. | Ich stecke das Geschenk in den Schrank. | ||
| b. | * | Ich stecke das Geschenk. | |
| c. | Ich verstecke das Geschenk in dem Schrank. | ||
| d. | Ich verstecke das Geschenk. | ||
[2.135] Symmetrical object diatheses are rare in German. A case change [obj › obj] is illustrated in (2.94) by the alternation between folgen ‘to follow’ (with dative) and verfolgen ‘to chase’ (with accusative), see Section 7.9.7.
| (2.94) | case change [obj › obj] | |
| a. | Ich folge dem Auto. | |
| b. | Ich verfolge das Auto. | |
[2.136] A governed preposition change [pbj › pbj] occurs in a special kind of construction with a reflexive pronouns that induces a change in lexical specific prepositions, like arbeiten an ‘to work on’ changing into sich arbeiten durch ‘to work through’ (2.95), see Section 6.9.4.
| (2.95) | governed preposition change [pbj › pbj] | |
| a. | Er arbeitet an den Daten. | |
| b. | Er arbeitet sich durch die Daten. | |
[2.137] An adjunct change [adj › adj] is, according to the definitions, not a diathesis at all, as adjuncts are not lexically specific. However, the change between a possessor and a prepositional phrase as shown in (2.96) can be seen as as a borderline examples, see Section 5.9.3.
| (2.96) | adjunct change [adj › adj] | |
| a. | Ich bewundere seine Ehrlichkeit. | |
| b. | Ich bewundere die Ehrlichkeit bei ihm. | |
[2.138] Chains of object diatheses (i.e. chains with the object in the middle of the chain) can always be interpreted as a combination of two isolated (‘single’) diatheses from the previous section. However, not all theoretically possible combinations are attested (see Figure 2.4). The pattern of which chains are attested is clearly not-random, though I do not have an insightful rationale for the distribution as shown in the figure.
[2.139] The patterns in the center of the figure are the most frequent chains with an object, called collectively full applicative [adj › obj › adj]. These diatheses are combinations of an applicative promotion [adj › obj] and an antipassive demotion [obj › adj]. A typical example is the diathesis between werfen ‘to throw’ and bewerfen ‘to throw at’ (2.97), see Section 7.9.3. In such examples a prepositional phrase turns into an accusative, and the erstwhile accusative into a prepositional phrase.
| (2.97) | applicative + antipassive [adj › obj › adj] | |
| a. | Ich werfe Dreck auf dich. | |
| b. | Ich bewerfe dich mit Dreck. | |
[2.140] The prepositional phrase of the applicative is in some examples a governed preposition, e.g. with zwingen ‘to force’ (2.99 a,b). This chain is thus a remapping of the form [pbj › obj › adj], but I will still call this a full applicative (see Section 7.9.5).
| (2.98) | governed applicative + antipassive [pbj › obj › adj] | |
| a. | Er zwingt ihn zu einem Geständnis. | |
| b. | Er zwingt ihn dazu, ein Geständnis abzulegen. | |
| c. | Er erzwingt ein Geständnis von ihm. | |
[2.141] A special case of a full applicative is illustrated here with the verb bewundern ‘to admire’ (2.99), see Section 5.8.12. This verb (and others like it) show a combination of a possessor raising applicative [adj › obj] and a governed antipassive [obj › pbj] leading to a full applicative chain [adj › obj › pbj].
| (2.99) | applicative (possessor raising) + governed antipassive [adj › obj › pbj] | |
| a. | Ich bewundere seine Ehrlichkeit. | |
| b. | Ich bewundere ihn für seine Ehrlichkeit. | |
| c. | Ich bewundere ihn dafür, dass er ehrlich ist. | |
[2.142] At the right and at the bottom of Figure 2.4 are chains that involve the addition or drop of a lexical role. An objective [ø › obj] is typically chained with an antipassive [obj › pbj/adj], resulting in a chain [ø › obj › pbj]. This is attested in the resultative object addition with the verb schneiden to cut (2.100), see Section 5.8.7. A new object, that is the result of the cutting, is introduced, while the old object is turned into a prepositional phrase (2.100 a,b). This prepositional phrase cannot be left out (10.45 c), so it classified here as an obligatory location (pbj).
| (2.100) | antipassive + objective (resultative) [ø › obj › pbj] | ||
| a. | Ich schneide das Brot. | ||
| b. | Ich schneide ein Loch in das Brot. | ||
| c. | ? | Ich schneide ein Loch | |
[2.143] The reversed chain [pbj › obj › ø] is illustrated in (2.101) with the diathesis between the verb pressen ‘to squeeze’ and auspressen ‘to squeeze’, see Section 7.7.12. The verb pressen takes an accusative that expressed the result of the squeezing (Saft), and the squeezee (Zitrone) is expressed as an obligatory prepositional phrase (2.101 a,b). The antiresultative auspressen (2.101 c) drops the result (Saft) and promotes the squeezee (Zitrone) to accusative.
| (2.101) | applicative + deobjective (antiresultative) [pbj › obj › ø] | ||
| a. | Ich presse den Saft aus der Zitrone. | ||
| b. | ? | Ich presse den Saft. | |
| c. | Ich presse die Zitrone aus. | ||
[2.144] Finally, there are a few chains involving a change of case at the top and the left of Figure 2.4. Note that when a case-change dative/genitive-to-accusative is seen as a promotion, and the reverse as a demotion (cf. paragraph 2.37), than the following diatheses can be interpreted as further examples of full applicatives.
[2.145] Example (2.102) shows a combination of a dative-to-accusative case change with an antipassive, resulting in a chain [obj › obj › adj]. The verb schenken ‘to gift’ takes a recipient in the dative and a patient in the accusative, while the derived beschenken ‘to gift’ turns the accusative into a prepositional phrase (i.e. antipassive) and changes the dative dir into an accusative dich (see Section 7.7.8).
| (2.102) | antipassive + case change [obj › obj › adj] | |
| a. | Ich schenke dir ein Buch. | |
| b. | Ich beschenke dich mit einem Buch. | |
[2.146] The reverse situation, i.e. a chain [adj › obj › obj], is attested with the diathesis between drängen ‘to urge’ and the marked aufdrängen ‘to impose’ (2.103), see Section 7.8.15. In this example a prepositional phrase changes into an accusative (i.e. applicative), while the accusative dich changes to dative dir.
| (2.103) | applicative + case change [adj › obj › obj] | |
| a. | Ich dränge dich zu einem Abo. | |
| b. | Ich dränge dir ein Abo auf. | |
[2.147] Finally, an incidental diathesis is attested with the verb rauben ‘to rob’ (2.104), see Section 7.9.8. When this verb is changed to berauben ‘to rob’ then two case changes happen simultaneously: first a dative-to-accusative change (dich becomes dir) and second an accusative-to-genitive change (das Buch becomes des Buches). This is thus an example of a remapping pattern [obj › obj › obj]. However, note that the chain dative-to-accusative-to-genitive suggests a combination of promotion and demotion, alike to a full applicative.
| (2.104) | double case change [obj › obj › obj] | |
| a. | Ich raube dir das Buch. | |
| b. | Ich beraube dich des Buches. | |
[3.1] Among all the diatheses that are distinguished in this survey there are many that only occur in very specific situations or might otherwise be considered to be exceptions or incidental instances. However, there are also very many diatheses that are highly frequent and can be used with very many different verbs. Those major diatheses, that are of central importance to the grammatical structure of German, will be summarised in this chapter. Such a summary would normally be presented at the end of a book, but because of the often long-winding data-driven details of the subsequent descriptive chapters I decided to present this summary here at the end of the introductory deliberations. Take it as a quick appetiser of things to come, with ample links to the actual discussion in later chapters.
[3.2] To reiterate the basic premise of this book: in the subsequent chapters 4 to 12 I aim to present a complete list of all coherent, and thus monoclausal, clause structures in German (cf. Section 1.3.1 on defining monoclausality). All in all, in those chapters there are 250+ separate sub-subsections that describe (often minor) variations of monoclausal structures. This diversity is condensed into 90+ major clause alternations as summarised in this chapter. Of those, about 70 are diatheses (i.e. clause alternations with role-remapping), while about 20 are epitheses (i.e. clause alternations without any change in role marking). All these counts should be taken with some leeway, because a lot depends on individual decisions about splitting or lumping structures into groups (e.g. how many lassen + infinitive constructions are counted separately, cf Section 10.2.5). Although the analysis of German clause alternations might look cleaner when lumping structures into larger groups, the diversity is actually not reduced, only hidden at the cost of larger within-group complexity.
[3.3] Besides a basic summary I also propose German names for all 90+ major derived monoclausal sentence structures. Using suitable names is a central aspect of (scientific) communication. In grammar, names are like instruments that allow us to abstract away from individual details and manipulate classes of utterances that show a specific abstract structure. However, naming is hard and can also lead to miscommunication. When re-using available terminology, the terms are easily recognised and remembered, but they carry the weight of history. Even when detailed definitions are given (as I have tried to do throughout this book), unintended interpretations of previous usage inevitably seep through. In contrast, inventing new names introduces more precision, but the downside are often cumbersome terms that are difficult to remember.
[3.4] In naming diatheses in this book I have tried to strike a balance between precise naming and good readability. For the English names in the detailed discussions in the coming chapters, I have decided in favour or precision. Each phenomenon is newly named with often long descriptive and unique names. In contrast, for the German names in this chapter I try to reuse available terminology as much as possible. When necessary, I propose new names that attempt to evoke a functional description like Reziprokativ or Erlebnispassiv. However, the semantic characterisation has not been the main focus of this book, so it might become necessary to rename diatheses in the future once more detailed investigations have been performed. In some cases I have not been able to find a suitable semantic characterisation. For those diatheses I have resorted to using formal characteristics in the name, always written as separate words, like Reflexiv Erlebnispassiv
[3.5] In this chapter, the diatheses are organised in sections according to the macro-role remapping patterns as introduced in Section 2.7. The different diatheses in each section are thus functionally highly similar, but they are structurally different. Inversely, there are various diatheses that structurally highly similar, but are nonetheless repeated in separate sections under different names. This is necessary because superficially identical diathesis can have rather different structural repercussions depending on the verb to which it is applied. This happens for examples with the sein + Partizip or the lassen + sich + Infinitiv constructions.
[3.6] Before diving into the daunting diversity of German diathesis, a short note on German names for different clause types is in order (see Table 3.1). The distinction between sentence (German: satz) and clause (German: teilsatz) is customary made in the German grammatical literature when a precise description is needed. However, the term Satz is often used as a shorthand for both. Subdividing clauses, there is of course a basic distinction between main clause (German: hauptsatz, more precise would be selbständiger teilsatz) and subordinate clause (German: nebensatz or alternatively untergeordneter teilsatz).
[3.7] Yet, a central thesis of this book is that there is a further subdivision for both main and subordinate clauses into three different kinds of clauses (see Section 2.1). First, a ‘basic clause’ is a clause with a single (finite) verb form in the Präsens or Imperfekt. For German I propose the term basissatz, or, to be more precise, grundlegender teilsatz. Second, an ‘epithesis’ is a clause alternant without role-remapping. For German I propose either the German neologism übersatz or the Greek-inspired epithese, or, to be more precise, erweiterter teilsatz. Finally, a diathesis is a clause with role-remapping. For German I propose the German neologism wechselsatz or the Greek-inspired diathese, or, to be more precise, umgestellter teilsatz.
| English Term | German Term | Short German Term |
|---|---|---|
| Main clause | Selbständiger Teilsatz | Hauptsatz |
| Subordinate clause | Untergeordneter Teilsatz | Nebensatz |
| Basic clause | Grundlegender Teilsatz | Basissatz |
| Epithesis | Erweiterter Teilsatz | Übersatz (Epithese) |
| Diathesis | Umgestellter Teilsatz | Wechselsatz (Diathese) |
[3.8] The unmarked verbativ (full discussion in Section 4.5.1 and subsequent sections) is typically found with dispersion verbs like stinken ‘to stink’, klingeln ‘to ring’ or krachen ‘to crunch’ (3.1 a). These verbs allow for an construction without explicit nominative subject describing a general situation with unknown cause. To replace the nominative subject a valency-simulating pronoun es is used (3.1 b). Additionally, various verbs that allow for impersonal constructions like es gibt ‘there exist’ or es wimmelt von ‘to swarm’ belong to this category of diatheses.
| (3.1) | a. | Der Müll stinkt. |
| b. | Hier stinkt es aber. |
[3.9] The wertungsverbativ (full discussion in Section 8.5.1) similarly replaces the nominative subject by a valency-simulating es. Additionally, this diathesis obligatorily needs a reflexive pronoun and an adverbial phrase describing an evaluation, like gut ‘fine’ or angenehm ‘pleasantly’. The Wertungsverbativ is typically used with agentive intransitive verbs like leben ‘to live’ or tanzen ‘to dance’ and describes a habitual situation. This diathesis is arguably closely related to the wertungsantikausativ (see Section 3.6.4).
| (3.2) | a. | Wir leben in diesem Haus. |
| b. | Hier lebt es sich gut. |
[3.10] The unpersönlicher vorgangspassiv is a construction consisting of the light verb werden with a participle of an intransitive verb (full discussion in Section 9.5.1). Only agentive (‘unergative’) intransitive verbs like tanzen ‘to dance’ (3.3) or schlafen ‘to sleep’ allow for this construction without any nominative subject (not even a valency-simulating es is needed). The name ‘passive’ is rather unfitting for this diathesis, but it is retained here because of widespread usage. This construction is arguably closely related to the vorgangspassiv for transitive verbs (see Section 3.7.1).
| (3.3) | a. | Die Jungs tanzen. |
| b. | Jetzt wird getanzt! |
[3.11] The unpersönlicher möglichkeitspassiv consists of the light verb lassen with the infinitive of an intransitive verb (full discussion in Section 10.5.1). This construction obligatory includes a reflexive pronoun and an evaluating adverbial expression like gut ‘fine’. A valency-simulating pronoun es appears to be optional. Similar to the previous diathesis, this diathesis also seems to be restricted to agentive intransitive verbs like arbeiten ‘to work’ (3.4). Likewise, the name ‘passive’ is ill-fitting here, but it is used because of the parallelism to the previous diathesis. This construction is arguably closely related to the möglichkeitspassiv for transitive verbs (see Section 3.7.2).
| (3.4) | a. | Ich arbeite zuhause. |
| b. | Zuhause lässt (es) sich gut arbeiten. |
[3.12] The unpersönlicher modalpassiv (full discussion in Section 11.5.1 and subsequent sections) consists of a light verb sein with zu and an infinitive. It is found with incidental intransitive verbs, but more typically with verbs with a dative argument (but no accusative) like helfen ‘to help’ or trauen ‘to trust’ (3.5). In this diathesis the nominative subject is dropped and cannot be retained in any other form. There is also no valency-simulating es present. The name ‘passive’ is actually besides the point for this diathesis, but it is used here because this construction is closely related to the modalpassiv (see Section 3.7.3).
| (3.5) | a. | Ich traue ihm nicht. |
| b. | Ihm ist nicht zu trauen. |
[3.13] The auftragsherabstufung (full discussion in Section 11.5.4 and subsequent sections) uses a subjectless light verbs gelten (3.6 a) or geben (3.6 b) with zu and an infinitive. The removed nominative subject is replaced by a valency-simulating pronoun es, so the light verbs are always in the third person singular, resulting in fixed expressions es gibt or es gilt. Any other argument is simply preserved, like the accusative den Koffer ‘the suitcase’ in the examples below. The removed subject can optionally be retained with a für prepositional phrase (though less easy with es gibt). These constructions semantically invoke some kind of assignment or possibility. Additionally, the geben diatheses (but not gelten) typically is used with some kind of quantification (3.6 b). The geben diathesis is related to the Auftragskausativ (see Section 3.10.8).
| (3.6) | a. | Wir verlieren den Koffer nicht. Jetzt gilt es (für uns) den Koffer nicht zu verlieren. |
| b. | Wir kaufen den Koffer. In dem Laden gibt es den Koffer ?(für uns) zu kaufen. |
[3.14] The instrumentsubjektivierung (full discussion in Section 5.5.4 and subsequent sections) promotes an instrument to nominative subject. For example, the instrument Schlüssel ‘key’ of the verb öffnen ‘to open’ is expressed with a mit prepositional phrase in (3.7 a). Alternatively, it can be expressed with a nominative as in (3.7 b). In that construction, the original agent cannot be expressed anymore. This diathesis looks very similar to the Kreationsubjektivierung (see Section 3.5.1), but there are crucial semantic and structural differences (discussed below).
| (3.7) | a. | Ich öffne die Tür mit dem Schlüssel. |
| b. | Der Schlüssel öffnet die Tür. |
[3.15] The kreationssubjektivierung (full discussion in Section 5.5.7) on first notice looks very similar to the previous Instrumentsubjektivierung. In both diatheses a mit prepositional phrase is promoted to nominative subject. However, with verb like überraschen ‘to surprise’ (3.8) the prepositional phrase does not represent an instrument, but a creation of the subject Lehrer ‘teacher’. This semantic difference is paralleled by a structural difference, namely that the mit prepositional phrase is a governed preposition (3.8 c). The verbs that allow for a Kreationsubjektivierung show a substantial overlap with the verbs that allow for the reflexiv erlebnispassiv (see Section 3.8.2), though the two groups are not identical.
| (3.8) | a. | Der Lehrer überraschst mich mit der Aufgabe. |
| b. | Die Aufgabe überrascht mich. | |
| c. | Der Lehrer überrascht mich damit, dass er die Aufgabe schon korrigiert hat. |
[3.16] The unmarked antikausativ (full discussion in Section 4.5.5 and subsequent sections) is attested with verbs like öffnen ‘to open’ or kochen ‘to cook’. These verbs occur both as transitive (3.9 a) and intransitive (3.9 b) without any further grammatical marking. Crucially, the object of the transitive is the subject of the intransitive. Because this diathesis is unmarked, there is no formal indication of a direction. So, this diathesis could just as well be interpreted as a causative. However, there is a formal difference between verbs that in the intransitive allow for both a haben and sein perfect (3.9 c,d) and those that only allow for a sein perfect. There seems to be an interesting semantic correlate to this formal difference in that the verbs that allow for both haben and sein seem primarily transitiv. Consequentially this first group is called antikausativ, while the second group with only sein is called kausativ (see Section 3.10.1).
| (3.9) | a. | Der Mitarbeiter öffnet den Laden. |
| b. | Der Laden öffnet gleich. | |
| c. | Der Laden hat geöffnet. | |
| d. | Der Laden ist geöffnet. |
[3.17] The ortsantikausativ (full discussion in Section 5.5.10) is similar to the previous unmarked antikausativ. Verbs like kleben ‘to glue, to stick’ or klappen ‘to fold’ occur both as transitive and intransitive (3.10 a,b) with the object of the transitive being the subject of the intransitive. Also the intransitive is possible with both haben and sein in the perfect (3.10 c,d). The only difference is the obligatory presence of a location. Note that there is also a parallel ortskausativ (see Section 3.10.2).
| (3.10) | a. | Ich habe den Teller an den Tisch geklebt. |
| b. | Der Teller klebt am Tisch. | |
| c. | Der Teller hat am Tisch geklebt. | |
| d. | Der Teller ist am Tisch geklebt. |
[3.18] The reflexiv antikausativ (full discussion in Section 6.5.2 and subsequent sections) is attested with verbs like entscheiden ‘to decide’ or beschränken ‘to limit’. Again, these verbs occur both as transitive and intransitive with the transitive object being the subject of the intransitive (3.11 a,b). However, with these verbs the intransitive needs an obligatory reflexive pronoun (3.11 b). The intransitive with reflexive pronoun typically takes haben in the perfect (3.11 c). The intransitive perfect with sein (3.11 d) can now clearly be identified as a zustandspassiv of the transitive (see Section 3.7.4).
| (3.11) | a. | Der Richter entscheidet den Fall. |
| b. | Der Fall entscheidet sich. | |
| c. | Der Fall hat sich entschieden. | |
| d. | Der Fall ist entschieden. |
[3.19] The wertungsantikausativ (full discussion in Section 8.5.2 and subsequent sections) is possible with many straightforward transitive verbs, like with verkaufen ‘to sell’ or lesen ‘to read’ (3.12 a). The anticausative intransitive obligatorily needs a reflexive pronoun, and additionally an obligatory manner adverbial is needed (3.12 b). Just like the previous anticausatives, the intransitive occurs both with haben and sein in the perfect. However, haben is clearly used with the reflexive anticausative construction with obligatory adverbial (3.12 c), while sein is used with the zustandspassiv (see Section 3.7.4) of the original transitive, without reflexive pronoun or obligatory adverbial evaluation (3.12 d).
| (3.12) | a. | Ich verkaufe das Buch. |
| b. | Das Buch verkauft sich gut. | |
| c. | Das Buch hat sich gut verkauft. | |
| d. | Das Buch ist verkauft. |
[3.20] The kontinuativantikausativ (full discussion in Section 9.5.10) is closely related to the sein Zustandspassiv (see Section 3.7.4), but now the light verb bleiben is used with a participle (3.13). Both sein and bleiben are known as auxiliaries (kopulaverben) in German grammar, so this parallel construction is not unexpected. However, not all verbs can be equally used in both constructions. For example, verbs like schreiben ‘to write’ or waschen ‘to wash’ are fine with the sein-Zustandspassiv but not with the bleiben-Kontinuativpassiv. Also the retention of the original agent as a prepositional phrase seems to be impossible here, so this diathesis is classified as an anticausative (3.13 b). This anticausative is only attested with transitive verbs. The same bleiben + Partizip construction can be used with intransitive verbs, but then it does not induce a diathesis and will consequently be called kontinuativperfekt (see Section 3.24.3).
| (3.13) | a. | Der Pförtner schließt die Tür. |
| b. | Die Tür bleibt geschlossen *(von den Pförtner). |
[3.21] The apparitivantikausativ (full discussion in Section 9.5.11 and subsequent sections) is constructed with one of the light verbs aussehen, scheinen, erscheinen and wirken with a participle of a transitive verb. The retention of the original agent as a prepositional phrase seems to be mostly not possible, so this diathesis is classified as an anticausative here. With intransitive verbs this construction does not show any diathesis, called apparativperfekt (see Section 3.24.5).
| (3.14) | a. | Der Pförtner schließt die Tür. |
| b. | Die Tür sieht geschlossen aus *(von den Pförtner). |
[3.22] The präsentativantikausativ (full discussion in Section 9.5.12) uses the light verb geben with a participle and an obligatory reflexive pronoun to express a conscious performance of verb by the erstwhile accusative. The original nominative cannot be retained. The light verb zeigen can be used alternatively to geben. Any difference between these two light verbs needs more investigation.
| (3.15) | a. | Die Stille entspannt ihn. |
| b. | Er gibt sich entspannt *(durch die Stille). |
[3.23] The kognitionsantikausativ (full discussion in Section 11.5.6) uses a light verb stehen with zu and infinitive. The original accusative object is promoted to subject and the erstwhile nominative subject cannot be retained, so this clearly is an anticausative diathesis. However, examples with an explicitly accusative noun phrase as in (3.16 a) are actually rare. Typically, this diatheses is found with cognitive predicates, like befürchten ‘to fear’, with a dass complement clause (3.16 b). Functionally, this complement clause has the same status as an accusative object. Note that complement clauses typically come towards the end of the sentence in German, and then the first position of the sentence often has to be filled with a position-simulating pronoun es (which is removed when the first position is filled otherwise).
| (3.16) | a. | Ich befürchte einen weiteren Beschäftigungsabbau. Ein weiterer Beschäftigungsabbau steht zu befürchten. |
| b. | Ich befürchte, dass er zu spät kommen wird. Es steht zu befürchten, dass er zu spät kommen wird. |
[3.24] The vorgangspassiv (full discussion in Section 9.5.14) is the infamous diathesis consisting of a light verb werden with a participle. Passives are very similar to anticausatives in that the transitive object is turned into the intransitive subject (3.17). The special characteristic of a passive is that the transitive subject can be optionally retained as a prepositional von or durch phrase. However, note that this prepositional phrase is normally not used. The same werden + Partizip construction leads to a different diathesis with intransitive verbs, namely the Unpersönlicher Passiv (see Section 3.2.3).
| (3.17) | a. | Ich verkaufe den Schrank. |
| b. | Der Schrank wird verkauft (von mir). |
[3.25] The möglichkeitspassiv (full discussion in Section 10.5.3) consists of the light verb lassen with infinitive and an obligatory reflexive pronoun (3.18). The agent can be retained as a von prepositional phrase, so this diathesis is a passive. The same construction applied to intransitive verbs leads to a different diathesis, namely the Unpersönlicher Möglichkeitspassiv (see Section 3.2.4).
| (3.18) | a. | Der Pförtner schließt die Tür. |
| b. | Die Tür lässt sich schließen (von dem Pförtner). |
[3.26] The modalpassiv (full discussion in Section 11.5.8) is constructed using the light verb sein with zu and an infinitive. When applied to transitive verbs like führen ‘to lead’ (3.19 a) or lösen ‘to solve’ (3.19 b) this diathesis promotes the accusative to nominative subject. The erstwhile nominative subject can be retained as a prepositional phrase. This diathesis has two different interpretations. It can indicate either an deontic modality (‘must’) as in (3.19 a) or an ability (‘can’) as in (3.19 b). Note that the subject retention with the preposition für is only possible in the ability-interpretation. The closely related Unpersönlicher Modalpassiv is used with intransitives and only allows for the deontic interpretation (see Section 3.2.5).
| (3.19) | a. | Der Besitzer führt den Hund an der Leine. Hunde sind an der Leine zu führen (von ihren Besitzern). |
| b. | Die Schüler lösen die Aufgabe. Die Aufgabe ist (für die Schüler) leicht zu lösen. |
[3.27] The zustandspassiv (full discussion in Section 9.5.15) consists of a light verb sein with a participle (3.20). Although this diathesis is traditionally called ‘passive’ in German grammar, the status of the retained agent is problematic (3.20 b). It might thus be better to consider this diathesis to be an anticausative. However, because of the long tradition I hold on to the term Zustandspassiv. The closely-related sein + Partizip erlebnispassiv (see Section 3.8.1) retains the subject with a governed preposition. Also the sein + Partizip perfekt as found with some intransitive verbs (see Section 3.24.2) is arguably also the same construction, though applied to different verbs.
| (3.20) | a. | Ich verkaufe den Schrank. |
| b. | Der Schrank ist verkauft ?(von mir). |
[3.28] The normpassiv (full discussion in Section 9.5.16) consists of the light verb gehören with a participle. It is only attested with verbs with accusative objects, like bestrafen ‘to punish’ (3.21). The diathesis expresses that the main verb ought to be applied to the object. The original subject an optionally be retained as a prepositional phrase.
| (3.21) | a. | Der Schiedsrichter bestraft den Spieler. |
| b. | Der Spieler gehört bestraft (durch den Schiedsrichter) |
[3.29] The rezipientenpassiv (full discussion in Section 9.5.19) has become a mainstay in the German grammatical literature. It consists of the light verb bekommen with a participle (alternatively, the light verbs kriegen or erhalten can be used). With this diathesis, a dative recipient is turned into the nominative subject. Again, the erstwhile nominative can be retained as a prepositional phrase, though it mostly is not used (as with all passives).
| (3.22) | a. | Der Friseur schneidet mir die Haare. |
| b. | Ich bekomme die Haare geschnitten (vom Friseur). |
[3.30] The pertinenzpassiv (full discussion in Section 9.5.20) is a special construction because it looks identical to the haben Perfekt (see Section 3.24.1), often even being ambiguous among the two interpretations. However, the Pertinenzpassiv is functionally much closer to the Rezipientenpassiv. The new nominative subject der Minister ‘the minister’ (3.23 b) is the (dative) experiencer/benefactor of the cutting (3.23 a). The original agent of the cutting Friseur ‘barber’ can only be retained with difficulty, so this diathesis looks closer to an anticausative. However, there is a well-known effect that this Pertinenzpassiv becomes much more common when stacked with a modal auxiliary like wollen ‘to want’ (3.23 c). In such a stack, the original agent can clearly be retained.
[3.31] The designation pertinenz refers to the fact that the new subject is necessarily the possessor of the accusative object Haare, ‘hair’. Such inherent possessors turn up in various diatheses, and all instances will be designated with the qualifier pertinenz. The most famous one is the pertinenzdativ (see Section 3.13.4), but there are various others, like the pertinenzinversiv (see Section 3.9.2) and the ortspertinenzinversiv (see Section 3.9.3).
| (3.23) | a. | Der Friseur schneidet dem Minister die Haare. |
| b. | Der Minister hat die Haare geschnitten ?(durch den Friseur). | |
| c. | Der Minister will die Haare vom Friseur geschnitten haben. |
[3.32] The permissivpassiv (full discussion in Section 10.5.6) is constructed with the light verb lassen with an infinitive and an obligatory reflexive pronoun. Similar to the Rezipientenpassiv, when applied to a ditransitive clause with an accusative and a dative the original dative is turned into a new nominative subject (but now with a dative reflexive pronoun), like with schenken ‘to gift’ (3.24). Semantically, there is a permissive modality introduced. This is a rather different from diatheses with lassen + sich + Infinitive discussed earlier (see Section 3.2.4 and 3.7.2). However, there is a close link to the permissivinversiv with transitive verbs (see Section 3.9.4). The permissive reading is also reminiscent of the lassen + Infinitiv permissivkausativ (see Section 3.10.4).
| (3.24) | a. | Der Verkäufer schenkt mir den Rechner. |
| b. | Ich lasse mir den Rechner schenken (von dem Verkäufer). |
[3.33] The erlebnispassiv (full discussion in Section 9.5.21) is constructed with the light verb sein and a participle. The form of this diathesis is identical to the Zustandspassiv (see Section 3.7.4), but there is a crucial difference in the remapping of the original nominative. Verbs that take a Zustandspassiv, like öffnen ‘to open’ only allow for the retention of the nominative with a von prepositional phrase, and only in special circumstances. In contrast, the verbs that take the Erlebnispassiv can regularly retain the agent with a governed preposition. For example, verärgern ‘to displease’ can express the original nominative with an über prepositional phrase (3.25 b), which is a governed preposition (3.25 c). Verbs that take the Erlebnispassiv are typically verbs the express an experience.
| (3.25) | a. | Die Nachricht verärgert mich. | |
| b. | Ich bin verärgert über die Nachricht. | ||
| c. | Ich bin verärgert darüber, dass die Nachricht verbreitet wurde. | ||
| d. | * | Ich verärgere mich über die Nachricht. |
[3.34] The reflexiv erlebnispassiv (full discussion in Section 6.5.8) is a diathesis in which a verb, like empören ‘to appall’ (3.26 a), can be used both with and without a reflexive pronoun. The effect of adding the reflexive pronoun is a remapping of the accusative to nominative and demoting the erstwhile nominative to a prepositional phrase (3.26 b). The prepositional phrase is a governed preposition (3.26 c). The verbs that allow this diathesis are typically verbs that express an experience. This diathesis is functionally rather similar to the previous Erlebnispassiv (see Section 3.8.1) and there are even many verbs that allow for both diatheses, like empören (3.26 d). However, not all verbs allow for both diatheses, like verärgern (3.25 d).
| (3.26) | a. | Der Preis empört den Kunden. |
| b. | Der Kunde empört sich über den Preis. | |
| c. | Der Kunde empört sich darüber, dass der Preis schon wieder gestiegen ist. | |
| d. | Der Kunde ist empört über den Preis. |
[3.35] The restinversive (full discussion in Section 11.9.1) uses the light verb bleiben with zu and an infinitive. This diathesis reverses the expression of the roles in that the accusative is promoted to a nominative, while the original nominative is demoted to an (optional) dative. Because the demotion is ‘larger’ than the promotion this would be called a demoted inversive. Semantically, this diatheses expresses that (some part of) the patient is still left over to be applied to the verb.
| (3.27) | a. | Ich räume den letzten Schrank ein. |
| b. | Dieser letzte Schrank bleibt (mir) noch einzuräumen. |
[3.36] The pertinenzinversiv (full discussion in Section 12.9.1), using the light verb haben with am and an infinitive, reverses the expression of the roles, though in the different direction from the previous Restinversiv (see Section 3.9.1). In this diathesis the dative is promoted to nominative, while the nominative is demoted to accusative (3.28). Further, the dative dem Mieter ‘tenant’ is necessarily the possessor (pertinenz) of the nominative die Wohnung ‘appartment’, i.e. it is a pertinenzdativ (see Section 3.13.4). Both in form and meaning this diathesis is strongly connected to the ensuing ortspertinenzinversiv (see Section 3.9.3), in which the dative is the possessor of the obligatory location. It seems possible that the preposition am in this diathesis is in some way related to the absence of any location here.
| (3.28) | a. | Dem Mieter brennt die Wohnung. |
| b. | Der Mieter hat die Wohnung am Brennen. |
[3.37] The ortspertinenzinversiv (full discussion in Section 10.9.2) is closely related to the previous pertinenzinversiv (see Section 3.9.2). Again, a dative is promoted to nominative, while the nominative is demoted to accusative. Also in both diatheses, the participant expressed by the dative is necessarily the possessor (pertinenz) of another participant. The difference is that with the current ortspertinenzinversiv this ‘other’ participant is an obligatory location, e.g. an der Nase ‘on the nose’ in (3.29). The dative in this diathesis is thus an ortspertinenzdativ (see Section 3.13.5). An interesting difference to the previous Pertinenzinveriv is that the infinitive does not take the preposition am here (3.29 c).
| (3.29) | a. | Ein Tropfen hängt ihm an der Nase. | |
| b. | Er hat einen Tropfen an der Nase hängen. | ||
| c. | * | Er hat einen Tropfen an der Nase am Hängen. |
[3.38] The permissivinversiv (full discussion in Section 10.9.1) is yet another diathesis using the construction lassen with obligatory reflexive and infinitive, this time used with verbs that take a dative, but no accusative like schmecken ‘to taste’ (3.30). The current diathesis appears to be particularly close to the Permissivpassiv (see Section 3.7.8). In both diatheses a dative is promoted to nominative with an obligatory reflexive pronoun. Differently though, in this diathesis the original nominative es demoted to accusative (compared to an optional prepositional phrase in the Permissivpassiv). Both diatheses add a causative/permissive meaning to the clause, reminiscent of the lassen + Infinitiv causative (see Section 3.10.4).
| (3.30) | a. | Der Kuchen schmeckt mir. |
| b. | Ich lasse mir den Kuchen schmecken. |
[3.39] The unmarked kausativ (full discussion in Section 4.6.2 and subsequent sections) is found with verb like schmelzen ‘to melt’, trocknen ‘to dry’ or zerbrechen ‘break’ (3.31 a,b). These verbs both occur as intransitive and as transitive with the intransitive subject being the object of the transitive. The new nominative subject of the transitive is a causer. Because this diathesis is unmarked, it is not immediately clear whether such a verbs is an examples of a Kausativ or an Antikausativ (see Section 3.6.1). As a formal characteristic for differentiation I propose to look at the auxiliaries of the intransitive perfect: anticausatives allow for both haben and sein, while causatives only allow for sein (3.31 c,d). Various old ablaut-causatives like fallen/fällen and biegen/beugen also belong in this category.
| (3.31) | a. | Der Krug zerbricht. | |
| b. | Der Junge zerbricht den Krug. | ||
| c. | Der Krug ist zerbrochen. | ||
| d. | * | Der Krug hat zerbrochen. |
[3.40] The ortskausativ (full discussion in Section 5.6.1 and subsequent sections) is similar to the previous Kausativ (see Section 3.10.1), only that the verbs like fahren ‘to drive’ and stürzen ‘to fall/topple’ (3.32 a,b) obligatory need a location (especially in the transitive). There is a parallel Ortsantikausativ in which the intransitive allows for both a sein and a haben perfect (see Section 3.6.2). Various old ablaut-causatives like liegen/legen ‘to lie/to lay’ and sitzen/setzen ‘to sit/to put’ also belong in this category.
| (3.32) | a. | Der Elefant stürzt ins Wasser. | |
| b. | Ich stürze den Elefanten ins Wasser. | ||
| c. | Der Elefant ist ins Wasser gestürzt. | ||
| d. | * | Der Elefant hat ins Wasser gestürzt. |
[3.41] The präverb kausativ (full discussion in Section 7.6.1 and subsequent sections) overtly marks the causative by a preverb (3.33), i.e. either by a verb prefix (e.g. enden/beenden ‘to end’) or by a verb particle (e.g. bruzeln/anbruzeln ‘to sizzle/to fry’). Preverbs are also frequently used to add a causer to an adjective forming a transitive verb (e.g grün/begrünen ‘green/to plant’, dunkel/verdunkeln ‘dark/to darken’).
| (3.33) | a. | Der Wettkampf endet. |
| b. | Ich beende den Wettkampf. |
[3.42] The permissivkausativ (full discussion in Section 10.6.2) consists of the light verb lassen with an infinitive. This diathesis is widely acknowledged in German grammar. It is often simply called a Kausativ but this construction has actually at least two different interpretations, namely a causative (3.34 c) and a permissive (3.34 d). It is widely used in German and there are only few verbs that do not allow for this diathesis (e.g. gefallen ‘to like’ or interessieren ‘to interest’).
| (3.34) | a. | Ich wasche die Kleider. |
| b. | Sie lässt mich die Kleider waschen. | |
| c. | (= Sie verursacht, dass ich die Kleider wasche.) | |
| d. | (= Sie erlaubt, dass ich die Kleider wasche.) |
[3.43] The agentivkausativ (full discussion in Section 10.6.4) is probably the most pure causative of all the various novative light verb with infinitive diatheses. It uses the light verb machen ‘to make’ and adds a causer. It is not in very widespread use and often sound like English calques, though it is probably an old Germanic construction.
| (3.35) | a. | Ich weine. |
| b. | Deine Späße machen mich weinen. |
[3.44] The direktivkausativ (full discussion in Section 10.6.3) is a causative with the extra semantic aspects that some form of instructions are given. This diathesis is constructed with the light verb schicken with infinitive. The meaning of the construction is rather close to the full lexical meaning of schicken ‘to send’. However, this construction is coherent, and thus monoclausal (3.36 c).
| (3.36) | a. | Er schläft |
| b. | Ich schicke ihn schlafen. | |
| c. | Es ist bekannt, dass ich ihn schlafen schicke. |
[3.45] The aktivitätskausativ (full discussion in Section 12.6.1) consists of the light verb bringen with zum and infinitive. This diathesis adds a nominative causer to intransitive verbs like tanzen ‘to dance’ (3.37 a). Accusative objects of transitive verbs can only be expressed when incorporated, forming predicates like Briefeschreiben ‘letter-writing’ (3.37 b). Such verbs with incorporated object are arguably intransitives.
| (3.37) | a. | Ich tanze. Die Musik bringt mich zum Tanzen. |
| b. | Ich schreibe einen Brief. Sie bringt mich zum Briefeschreiben. |
[3.46] The auftragskausativ (full discussion in Section 11.6.1) adds a causer by using the light verb geben with zu and an infinitive. In this diathesis the erstwhile subject becomes a dative (not an accusative). In many examples of this diathesis the meaning of this diathesis is very close to the meaning of the lexical verb geben ‘to give’. For example with the verb trinken ‘to drink’ (3.38 a) the diathesis implies both the literal interpretation ‘he gives X to Y for drinking’ and the causative interpretation ‘he causes Y to drink X’. Whatever the interpretation, this construction is coherent, and thus monoclausal (3.38 b), so, whatever the precise semantic interpretation, this is structurally clearly a diathesis. The light-verb status of geben is better exemplified with verbs that take clausal complements like bedenken ‘to consider’ (3.38 c).
| (3.38) | a. | Das Kind trinkt Milch. Er gibt dem Kind Milch zu trinken. |
| b. | Es ist bekannt, dass er dem Kind Milch zu trinken gibt. | |
| c. | Ich bedenke, dass es schon spät ist. Er gibt mir zu bedenken, dass es schon spät ist. |
[3.47] The perzeptiv (full discussion in Section 10.6.6 and subsequent sections) is a novative that consists of one of the verbs of sensation sehen/hören/fühlen/spüren with an infinitive. The new nominative is an observer/experiencer of the main verb. The erstwhile nominative is turned into an accusative. The possibly leads to a double accusative construction when there already was an accusative present (3.39 a,b). This diathesis can be used with all verbs that can be experienced as an observer. Note that these verbs of perception can also be used with an explicit dass complement clause (3.39 c), but such constructions are not coherent, and thus no diatheses.
| (3.39) | a. | Du gibst ihm einen Kuss. |
| b. | Ich sehe dich ihm einen Kuss geben. | |
| c. | Ich sehe, dass du ihm einen Kuss gibst. |
[3.48] The opiniativ (full discussion in Section 9.6 and subsequent sections) is constructed with one of the light verbs wissen/glauben/sehen/finden with a participle. Applied to an patientive intransitive verb like einschlafen ‘to fall asleep’ it adds an opinionator who believes with more or less certainty (depending on the light verb that is used) whether the einschlafen has occurred or not. The original nominative is changed into an accusative.
| (3.40) | a. | Der Säugling schläft ein. |
| b. | Sie glaubt den Säugling eingeschlafen. (= Sie glaubt, dass der Säugling eingeschlafen ist.) |
[3.49] The transitiv opiniativ (full discussion in Section 9.6.5 and subsequent sections) is the same construction as the previous Opiniativ (see Section 3.10.10) but applied to transitive verbs. However, I have included this as a separate diathesis because it shows a rather different role-remapping. When used with a transitive verb like aufheben ‘to preserve’ (3.41 a) the erstwhile nominative Archiv ‘archive’ is demoted to a prepositional adjunct or completely left out (3.41 b). The accusative Nachlass ‘inheritance’ remains unchanged.
| (3.41) | a. | Das Archiv hebt den Nachlass gut auf. |
| b. | Sie weiß den Nachlass (im Archiv) gut aufgehoben. (= Sie weiß, dass der Nachlass (im Archiv) gut aufgehoben ist.) |
[3.50] This Transitiv Opiniativ can of course easily be united with the previous Opiniativ into a single diathesis by noticing, for example, that both can be rephrased with a complement clause with sein and a participle, compare (3.40 b) and (3.41 b). However, this implies that when both Opiniativ diatheses are united, then the sein-Perfekt in (8.13 b), see Section 3.24.2, and the Zustandspassiv in (3.41 b), see Section 3.7.4, have to be united as well (there is a perfect parallelism here). Now, there is nothing against this second unification (see Section 9.2.7 for a discussion), but exactly this point has been rather controversially discussed in the German grammatical literature. So either both are unified, or both are separated. Because I have separated the Zustandspassiv and the sein-Perfekt in this summary, I consequently also separate the two Opiniativ diatheses.
[3.51] The passivkausativ (full discussion in Section 10.6.1) can be see as a variant of the Permissivkausativ (see Section 3.10.4). Both use the lassen + Infinitiv construction to add a new causer to the sentence. Additionally, in a Passivkausativ (3.42 b) the original nominative is demoted to a prepositional phrase (or it is left out completely).
| (3.42) | a. | Die Wäscherei reinigt den Teppich. |
| b. | Der neue Besitzer lässt den Teppich (von der Wäscherei) reinigen. |
[3.52] The unmarked akkusativ antipassiv (full discussion in Section 5.7.6 and subsequent sections) is a diathesis in which an accusative argument alternates with a prepositional phrase. This typically occurs without any overt marking other than the antipassive alternation itself. For example, the verb schießen ‘to shoot’ can be used both with an accusative and with an auf prepositional phrase (3.43 a). The semantic effect of this diathesis is that the object is less affected when marked as a prepositional phrase. In some instances, like with glauben an ‘to believe in’ (3.43 b) the prepositional phrase is a governed preposition (see Section 5.7.10).
| (3.43) | a. | Ich schieße den Bären. Ich schieße auf den Bären. |
| b. | Ich glaube deine Aussage. Ich glaube an deiner Aussage. Ich glaube daran, dass deine Aussage stimmt. |
[3.53] The unmarked dativ antipassiv (full discussion in Section 5.7.8 and subsequent sections) is a diathesis in which a dative argument alternates with a prepositional phrase. In a few instances this is attested with a dative without accusative, like with weichen ‘to give way’ (3.44 a). More widespread this diathesis is found with verbs like berichten ‘to report’ (3.44 b) that allow for both an accusative and dative argument.
| (3.44) | a. | Die Demonstranten wichen der Polizei. Sie wichen vor der Polizei. |
| b. | Er berichtet dem Vorstand die Ergebnisse der Untersuchung. Er berichtet die Ergebnisse an den Vorstand. |
[3.54] The reflexiv antipassiv (full discussion in Section 6.7.5) is an antipassive in which additionally a reflexive pronoun is added. For example, the verb beklagen ‘to lament’ (3.45) has a lamented object role Lärm ‘noise’ in the accusative (3.45 a) or in a prepositional phrase with über (3.45 b). The reflexive pronoun in (3.45 b) is not a self-inflicting reflexive, i.e. the lamenting is not about oneself. These reflexive antipassives always have governed prepositional phrases (3.45 c).
| (3.45) | a. | Ich beklage den Lärm. |
| b. | Ich beklage mich über den Lärm. | |
| c. | Ich beklage mich darüber, dass es so laut ist |
[3.55] The reziprokativ (full discussion in Section 6.7.4) is a special kind of antipassive in which an accusative is replaced by a mit prepositional phrase and additionally a reflexive pronoun is added, as shown for the verb treffen ‘to meet’ in (3.46). This reflexive pronoun does not have self-inflicting reference, i.e. the meeting is not with oneself. Semantically this diathesis is found with some verbs that can be construed as either reciprocal or non-reciprocal. For example, the verb treffen ‘to meet’ can be used without reflexive pronoun (3.46 a) meaning something like ‘to bump into someone’, while with a reflexive pronoun the meaning is clearly reciprocal ‘to meet’ (3.46 b).
| (3.46) | a. | Ich treffe dich. |
| b. | Ich treffe mich mit dir. |
[3.56] The präverb applikativ (full discussion in Section 7.8.10 and subsequent sections) is an alternation in which a prepositional phrase is turned into an accusative through the addition of a preverb. For example, the alternation from steigen to besteigen ‘to climb’ additionally induces a change from the preposition auf to an accusative (3.47 a,b). There is a wide variety in preverbs (both Verbpräfixe and Verbpartikel) and a wide variety of prepositions that show such a diathesis. The prepositional phrases that are turned into an accusative can also be governed prepositions like an together with the verb arbeiten ‘to work’ (3.47 c), which turns into an accusative with erarbeiten ‘to work something out’ (see Section 7.8.11). A closely related Präverb Transitiv Applikativ diathesis is attested with transitive verbs (see Section 3.19.2).
| (3.47) | a. | Ich steige auf den Berg. |
| b. | Ich besteige den Berg. | |
| c. | Ich arbeite an einem Plan. Ich arbeite daran, den Plan zu verbessern. |
|
| d. | Ich erarbeite einen Plan. |
[3.57] The adverb applikativ (full discussion in Section 8.8.2) is also an alternation that turns a prepositional phrase into an accusative, though in this instance the diathesis is induces by a adverbial, like leer ‘empty’ or gesund ‘healthy’. When used with an intransitive verb like fischen ‘to fish’ (3.48 a) the prepositional phrase is turned into an accusative. The effect of this diathesis is that the new accusative Teich ‘pond’ is in the state described by the adverbial leer as a result of the verbal action fischen (3.48 b). This diathesis is also attested with governed prepositions, like with the verb beten für ‘to pray for’ (3.48 c,d). A related Adverb Vollapplikativ diathesis is attested with transitive verbs (see Section 3.19.3).
| (3.48) | a. | Ich fische im Teich. |
| b. | Ich fische den Teich leer. (= Ich fische, und dadurch ist der Teich leer.) |
|
| c. | Ich bete für den Kranken. Ich bete dafür, dass der Kranke gesund wird. |
|
| d. | Ich bete den Kranken gesund. |
[3.58] The präverb dativ applikativ (full discussion in Section 7.8.16 and subsequent sections) is an alternation in which the prepositional phrase is turned into a dative (as opposed to an accusative as in Section 3.13.1). Although the prepositions in this diathesis are often strongly lexicalised, like stammen aus ‘originate from’ (3.49 a), they do not allow for the daraus, dass… reformulation that is considered definitional here for them to be governed prepositions (3.49 c).
| (3.49) | a. | Ich stamme aus einem Adelsgeschlecht. | |
| b. | Ich entstamme einem Adelsgeschlecht. | ||
| c. | * | Ich stamme daraus, dass ich dort geboren bin. |
[3.59] The pertinenzdativ (full discussion in Section 4.8.3 and subsequent sections) is a dative that is inherently the possessor of another lexical role. The term pertinenz (from lat. pertinere ‘to belong to’) was proposed by Polenz (1969: 160ff.)11 for this phenomenon and for the closely connected Ortspertinenzdativ as discussed in the next section. I have extended the usage of this term to various other diatheses that involve a possessor of another role, see Pertinenzpassiv (Section 3.7.7), Pertinenzinversiv (Section 3.9.2) and Pertinenzakkusativ (Section 3.19.4). The Pertinenzdativ is attested both for the possessor of a nominative subject of intransitives (3.50 a) and for the possessor of the accusative object of transitives (3.50 b). As for any Pertinenz-relation, it is crucial that the dative is necessarily the possessor of another lexical role.
| (3.50) | a. | Meine Hände zittern. Mir zittern die Hände. |
| b. | Ich beende deinen Vertrag. Ich beende dir den Vertrag. |
[3.60] The ortspertinenzdativ (full discussion in Section 5.8.10 and subsequent sections) is closely connected to the previous Pertinenzdativ (Section 3.13.4). The dative in (3.51) is likewise obligatorily a possessor of another lexical role, though in this diathesis this other role is an obligatory location. For example, the verb hängen, ‘to hang’ (3.51 a) necessarily needs a location where the hanging is taking place. The possessor of this location can be replaced by a dative. Besides being an inherent argument of a verb, the obligatory location can also be included by a resultative diathesis (e.g. Section 3.16.2). For example, the verb wehen ‘to blow (of wind)’ can be used resultatively with an obligatory location in meinem Gesicht (3.51 b). The possessor of this location can subsequently be turned into a dative.
| (3.51) | a. | Das Hemd hing aus seiner Hose. Das Hemd hing ihm aus der Hose. |
| b. | Es weht. Der Wind weht die Blätter in meinem Gesicht. Der Wind weht mir die Blätter ins Gesicht. |
[3.61] The benefaktivdativ (full discussion in Section 5.8.9) is a dative that alternates with a für prepositional phrase. For example with the verb kochen ‘to cook’ the beneficiary of the cooking can be expressed with a für prepositional phrase (3.52 a) or with a dative (3.52 b). Not all beneficiary für phrases can be turned into a dative. The Benefaktivdativ is only attested with transitive verbs. With intransitive like arbeiten ‘to work’ a für beneficiary is possible (3.52 c), but a dative is not (3.52 d).
| (3.52) | a. | Ich koche eine Suppe für dich. | |
| b. | Ich koche dir eine Suppe. | ||
| c. | Ich arbeite für dich. | ||
| d. | * | Ich arbeite dir. |
[3.62] The unmarked resultatakkusativ (full discussion in Section 4.8.1) is highly similar to the optionaler akkusativ diathesis (Section 3.15.1). In both diatheses, the same verb can be used both with and without an accusative argument. The special characteristics of verbs like singen ‘to sing’ (3.53) is that they are (a) basically intransitive and (b) the accusative represents the result of the intransitive action. The difference between an unmarked added accusative and an unmarked dropped accusative is arguably small, and it remains to be seen whether this separation can be backed up by further distinguishing grammatical characteristics.
| (3.53) | a. | Er singt. |
| b. | Er singt ein Lied. |
[3.63] The präverb akkusativ (full discussion in Section 7.8.1 and subsequent sections) is a diathesis in which the addition of a preverb leads to an accusative argument. For example, the diathesis from zaubern ‘to perform magic’ to verzaubern ‘to enchant’ (3.54) adds a completely new role in the accusative.
| (3.54) | a. | Sie zaubert. |
| b. | Sie verzaubert mich. |
[3.64] The präverb dativ is similar to the previous Präverb Akkusativ in that the addition of the preverb also induces a new role, in this diathesis marked with a dative case. This diathesis is attested both with intransitive verbs like gehen ‘to walk’ and preverbal entgehen ‘to evade’ (3.55 a), full discussion in Section 7.8.5, and with transitive verbs like lesen ‘to read’ and the preverbal vorlesen ‘to read out’ (3.55 b), full discussion in Section 7.8.6.
| (3.55) | a. | Ich gehe (nach Hause). Ich entgehe dem Urteil. |
| b. | Ich lese ein Buch. Ich lese dir ein Buch vor. |
[3.65] The präverb reflexiv akkusativ (full discussion in Section 7.8.7) is a special variant of an objective diathesis in that the addition of the preverb leads to a new accusative argument, but also needs an obligatory reflexive pronoun. The new accusative role is semantically the result of the action of the main verb, which is similar to the Resultatakkusativ (Section 3.14.1), but different from the präverb akkusativ (Section 3.14.2). For example, the diathesis from tanzen ‘to dance’ to antanzen ‘to incur from dancing’ (3.56) adds the incurrence Muskelkater ‘sore muscles’ and a reflexive pronoun.
| (3.56) | a. | Ich habe gestern viel getanzt. |
| b. | Ich habe mir gestern einen Muskelkater angetanzt. |
[3.66] An unmarked optionaler akkusativ (full discussion in Section 4.7.1) is a diathesis in which an accusative object can be left out without any further change in the construction. This is for example attested with the verb stören ‘to disturb’ (3.57). Note that when the accusative object of a verb allows for an antipassive diathesis (Section 3.12.1), then the verb should not also be included in this Optionaler Akkusativ diathesis. Also, there is a more widespread drop of an accusative that leads to an action-oriented focus, introduced below as the Aktionsfokus diathesis (Section 3.15.3). Verbs with such a diathesis should not also be included here. There is also a highly similar resultatakkusativ diathesis (Section 3.14.1) that should be distinguished. Once all those diatheses are separated, there turn out to be relatively few verbs with Optionaler Akkusativ, mainly verbs that can be interpreted both as something you can do, as well as something you can be.
| (3.57) | a. | Du störst die Veranstaltung. |
| b. | Du störst. |
[3.67] The unmarked optionaler dativ, i.e. the dropping of a dative argument without any further change in the construction, is both attested with nominative-dative verbs like entkommen ‘to get away’ (3.58 a), full discussion in Section 4.7.4, and with nominative-accusative-dative verbs like erzählen ‘to tell’ (3.58 b), full discussion in Section 4.7.5. Like with Optionaler Akkusativ (Section 3.15.1), datives that allow for a dative antipassive (Section 3.12.2) should not also be included here.
| (3.58) | a. | Er entkommt seinem Feind. Er entkommt. |
| b. | Ich erzähle dir eine Geschichte. Ich erzähle eine Geschichte. |
[3.68] The aktionsfokus (full discussion in Section 8.7.1) is a widespread diathesis in which object arguments can be left out to put the focus on the action of the verb itselft. For example, a transitive verb like lesen ‘to read’ (3.59 a) can be used without an object as an answer to the question ‘what is she doing right now?’ (3.59 b). Such dropped objects are even more widespread in combination with manner adverbials (3.59 c).
| (3.59) | a. | Sie liest ein Buch. | |
| b. | ? | Sie liest. | |
| c. | Sie liest gerne |
[3.69] The Endoreflexiv (full discussion in Section 6.7.1 and subsequent sections) is a special kind of object drop in which a reflexive pronoun is added. Such a diathesis looks superficially very similar to a regular self-inflicting reflexive (Section 3.22.1), but there is a crucial semantic difference. In a self-inflicting reflexive (e.g. ‘he washes himself’) the agent is doing something to him/herself. In contrast, an Endoreflexiv describes an action that is performed with the body of the agent, not to the body of the agent. For example, the verb äußern ‘to remark’ (5.90 a) can be used with a reflexive pronoun and without accusative object in the meaning of ‘to express oneself’ (3.60 b).
| (3.60) | a. | Er äußert sein Bedauern über den Fall. |
| b. | Er äußert sich über den Fall. |
[3.70] The präverb endoreflexiv (full discussion in Section 7.7.3) is similar to the previous Endoreflexiv (Section 3.15.4) but with the addition of a preverb. For example, the verb wählen ‘to choose/to dial’ shows a diathesis with sich verwählen ‘to misdial’ (3.61 a) in which the accusative object is dropped. There are also a few very special endoreflexive verbs in which an adverbial is necessary instead of a preverb, for example fühlen ‘to feel’ (3.61 b), see Section 8.7.2.
| (3.61) | a. | Er wählt die falsche Nummer. Er verwählt sich. |
| b. | Ich fühle den Schmerz. Ich fühle mich gut. |
[3.71] The bewegungsart diathesis (full discussion in Section 5.8.2 and subsequent sections) is a diathesis that is specifically attested with verbs of movement like tanzen ‘to dance’ (3.62). Movement verbs allow for both a haben and a sein perfect, but there is a crucial difference between these two options. With sein in the perfect there is an additional directional prepositional necessary (3.62 b,c). Semantically, this construction expresses a movement, in which the main lexical verb designates the kind of movement.
| (3.62) | a. | Ich habe (in dem Garten) getanzt. | |
| b. | Ich bin durch den Garten getanzt. | ||
| c. | * | ich bin getanzt. |
[3.72] The verursachte bewegung diathesis is attested in two variants. With intransitive verbs (full discussion in Section 5.8.4 and subsequent sections) like schwitzen ‘to sweat’ (3.63 a) this diathesis adds both an accusative and an obligatory movement phrase. Semantically, this diathesis expresses that the verb causes the movement of the new object role. With transitive verbs (full discussion in Section 5.8.5) like befehlen ‘to command’ the effect is similar (3.63 b). With a movement prepositional phrase the semantic effect is that the verb causes the object to move.
| (3.63) | a. | Ich schwitze. Ich schwitze einen Fleck in meinem Hemd. (= Ich schwitze, und dadurch entsteht ein Fleck in mein Hemd.) |
| b. | Ich befehle eine Armee. Ich befehle die Armee an die Front. (= Ich befehle, und dadurch geht die Armee an die Front.) |
[3.73] The ergänzende wirkung diathesis (full discussion in Section 5.8.6) expresses the result of performing the main verb. For example, a transitive verb like machen ‘to make’ can either take an object that is made (3.64 a) or an object that changed into something else (3.64 b). The name Ergänzende Wirkung originates in the influential educational grammatical work of Karl Ferdinand Becker (Becker 1833: 81) almost 200 years ago.
| (3.64) | a. | Er macht seine Aufgaben. |
| b. | Er macht die Wiese zu einem Garten. |
[3.74] The präverb antilokativ (full discussion in Section 7.7.9 and subsequent sections) is a diathesis in which an obligatory location loses its obligatoriness by adding a preverb. For example, the diathesis between steigen aus and aussteigen ‘to get out’ (3.65) shows a small but crucial difference in that the prepositional phrase aus dem Auto loses its obligatory status.
| (3.65) | a. | Der Man steigt aus dem Auto. | |
| b. | * | Der Mann steigt. | |
| c. | Der Mann steigt (aus dem Auto) aus. | ||
| d. | Der Mann steigt aus. |
[3.75] The adverb antilokativ (full discussion in Section 8.7.4 and subsequent sections) is a parallel diathesis compared to the previous Präverb Antilokativ (Section 3.17.1). Instead of adding a preverb, this diathesis adds an obligatory resultative adverb, like los ‘loose’. The diathesis between binden ‘to tie’ and losbinden ‘to untie’ removes the obligatory status of the locative prepositional phrase.
| (3.66) | a. | Ich binde den Hund an die Leine. | |
| b. | * | Ich binde den Hund. | |
| c. | Ich binde den Hund (von der Leine) los. | ||
| d. | Ich binde den Hund los. |
[3.76] The reflexiv verursachte bewegung (full discussion in Section 6.9.4) is a special variant of the Verursachte Bewegung (Section 3.16.2). In this diathesis, a verb like träumen von ‘to dream’ that takes a governed prepositional phrase (3.67 a,b) can alternatively be used with a reflexive pronoun (3.67 c). With the reflexive pronoun there is an obligatory movement phrase necessary instead of the governed prepositional phrase (3.67 d). Semantically, this construction describes an (imaginary) movement that is caused by the main verb.
| (3.67) | a. | Ich träume von New York. | |
| b. | Ich träume davon nach New York zu reisen. | ||
| c. | Ich träume mich nach New York. | ||
| d. | * | Ich träume mich. |
[3.77] The unmarked vollapplikativ (full discussion in Section 5.9.2) is an extended version of an applicative. More precise, it is a combination of an applicative and a subsequent antipassive. For example, the verb füllen ‘to fill’ has two object roles: (i) the filled object Flasche ‘bottle’ and (ii) the filling substance Schnaps ‘liquor’. Both roles alternate between a prepositional phrase and an accusative (3.68 a,b). There appears to be an asymmetry in that the filling substance cannot be used as an accusative without mentioning the filled object (3.68 c), while the reverse is possible (3.68 d). This asymmetry is also attested in the closely related Präverb Vollpplikativ (see Section 3.19.2). The construction with the filled object as accusative (3.68 b,d) is similar to the preverbal befüllen. The asymmetry indicates that this diathesis is basically an unmarked applicative (cf. Section 3.13.1), but applied to transitive verbs. The applicative changes a prepositional phrase into an accusative and, as a consequence, any accusative already present is demoted like an antipassive.
| (3.68) | a. | Er füllt den Schnaps in die Flasche. | |
| b. | Er füllt die Flasche mit Schnaps. | ||
| c. | * | Er füllt den Schnaps. | |
| d. | Er füllt die Flasche. |
[3.78] The präverb vollapplikativ (full discussion in Section 7.9.3) is similar to the previous unmarked Vollpplikativ, combining an applicative and an antipassive diathesis. Noteworthy, there appear to be only two antipassive strategies, using the prepositions mit and in, respectively. For example, with the diathesis from schreiben ‘to write’ to beschreiben ‘to write on’ (3.69 a) the written text Buchstaben ‘letters’ changes from an accusative to a mit prepositional phrase. Differently, with the diathesis from graben ‘to dig’ to begraben ‘to bury’ the dug entity Loch ‘hole’ changes from an accusative to an in prepositional phrase. Both these prepositional phrases can be left unexpressed.
[3.79] In contrast to the few antipassive options, there is a wide variety of applicative strategies attested, i.e. many different prepositions can be promoted to accusative (see Section 7.9.3 for all known examples). This asymmetry indicates that any Vollapplikativ is basically an applicative, but applied to verbs that already have an accusative argument. The German language disprefers multiple arguments with the same case, so the erstwhile accusative is demoted as another role is promoted to accusative. This corollary demotion is reminiscent of subject demotion with passives.
| (3.69) | a. | Ich schreibe Buchstaben auf das Papier. Ich beschreibe das Papier (mit Buchstaben). |
| b. | Ich grabe ein Loch für meinen Hund. Ich begrabe meinen Hund (im Loch). |
[3.80] The adverb vollapplikativ (full discussion in Section 8.9.1) is closely related to the previous Präverb Vollapplikativ (see Section 3.19.2), though marked with an adverb instead of a preverb. It mainly seems to occur with the adverb voll ‘full’ (3.70 a), for example turning the verb pumpen ‘to pump’ into vollpumpen ‘to pump full’. Just as in the previous Vollpplikativ diatheses, the role Luft ‘air’ will be demoted to a mit prepositional phrase (or can be left out completely). With the adverb leer ‘empty’ (3.70 b) the erstwhile object cannot be retained as a prepositional phrase, see Section 8.7.8.
| (3.70) | a. | Ich pumpe Luft in den Reifen. Ich pumpe den Reifen voll (mit Luft). |
| b. | Ich pumpe das Wasser aus dem Keller. Ich pumpe den Keller leer. |
[3.81] The pertinenzakkusativ (full discussion in Section 5.8.12) is an accusative that alternates with a possessor of another accusative. A verb like bewundern ‘to admire’ marks the admired thing, e.g. Ehrlichkeit ‘honesty’ as an accusative (3.71 a). After the diathesis, the possessor of this accusative seine ‘his’ is raised to accusative ihn ‘him’ (3.71 b), at the same time demoting the admired thing to a governed prepositional object with für (3.71 c).
| (3.71) | a. | Ich bewundere seine Ehrlichkeit. |
| b. | Ich bewundere ihn für seine Ehrlichkeit. | |
| c. | Ich bewundere ihn dafür, dass er ehrlich ist. |
[3.82] The unmarked resultativ (full discussion in Section 5.8.7 and subsequent sections) is a chained diathesis. A new accusative object is introduced (‘objective’) and the erstwhile object is demoted to a prepositional phrase (‘antipassive’). However, these two remappings are tightly intertwined and have to occur together. Semantically, the effect is describing the result of an action and the diathesis is highly similar to the Verursachte Bewegung diathesis (Section 3.16.2), but the remapping of roles is crucially different as there is no chained remapping in the latter.
[3.83] An example is shown in (3.72) with the verb brechen ‘to break’. This verb can be used with an accusative argument describing the role of the broken thing, here Felsen ‘rock’ (3.72 a). Alternatively, a different role can be marked with an accusative, namely the result of the breaking, here Loch ‘hole’ (3.72 b). In this usage, a location is obligatory present in the sentence, here in den Felsen ‘in the rock’ (3.72 b,c). This location represents the place at which the resulting of the breaking is found, so this location is the broken thing itself.
| (3.72) | a. | Ich breche den Felsen. | |
| b. | Ich breche ein Loch in den Felsen. | ||
| c. | * | Ich breche ein Loch. |
[3.84] The präverb antiresultativ (full discussion in Section 7.7.12) is the reverse of the previous Resultativ (Section 3.20.1). Verbs like pressen ‘to squeeze’ (3.73 a) obligatorily take an accusative result, here Saft ‘juice’, and a prepositional object from which the result originates, here aus der Zitrone ‘from the citron’ (3.73 b). With a preverb auspressen ‘to squeeze’ (3.73 c) the accusative result is dropped (‘deobjective’) and the originating prepositional object from which the result was produced is turned into a new accusative role (‘applicative’). However, these two remappings are tightly intertwined and can only be used together. Semantically, there is a close connection to the Präverb Antilokativ diathesis (Section 3.17.1), though there is no chained remapping in the latter.
| (3.73) | a. | Ich presse den Saft aus der Zitrone. | |
| b. | * | Ich presse den Saft. | |
| c. | Ich presse die Zitrone aus. |
[3.85] (full discussion in Section 6.4.5 and subsequent sections)
| (3.74) | a. | Der Vater wäscht das Kind. |
| b. | Der Vater wäscht sich (selbst). |
[3.86] (full discussion in Section 6.4.14 and subsequent sections)
| (3.75) | a. | Karl achtet Anna. |
| b. | Karl und Anna achten sich. |
[3.87] (full discussion in Section 6.4.1 and subsequent sections)
| (3.76) | a. | Ich habe das Haus angesehen. |
| b. | Ich habe mir das Haus angesehen. |
[3.88] (full discussion in Section 7.4.1 and subsequent sections)
| (3.77) | a. | Ich esse den Apfel. |
| b. | Ich esse den Apfel auf. |
[3.89] (full discussion in Section 7.4.5 and subsequent sections)
| (3.78) | a. | Die Blume hat geblüht. | |
| b. | Die Blume ist verblüht. | ||
| c. | * | Die geblühte Blume ist immer noch schön. | |
| d. | Die verblühte Blume ist immer noch schön. |
[3.90] (full discussion in Section 7.4.7 and subsequent sections)
| (3.79) | a. | Ich laufe im Wald. |
| b. | Ich verlaufe mich im Wald. |
[3.91] (full discussion in Section 8.4.1 and subsequent sections)
| (3.80) | a. | Ich schlafe. |
| b. | Ich schlafe mich gesund. |
[3.92] (full discussion in Section 9.4.1 and subsequent sections)
| (3.81) | a. | Das Kind schläft. |
| b. | Das Kind hat geschlafen. |
[3.93] (full discussion in Section 9.4.2 and subsequent sections)
| (3.82) | a. | Das Kind schläft ein. |
| b. | Das Kind ist eingeschlafen. |
[3.94] (full discussion in Section 9.4.11)
| (3.83) | a. | Der Schlüssel verschwindet. |
| b. | Der Schlüssel bleibt verschwunden. |
[3.95] (full discussion in Section 9.4.12)
| (3.84) | a. | Ich schließe die Tür. |
| b. | Ich halte die Tür geschlossen. | |
| c. | Ich lasse die Tür geschlossen. |
[3.96] (full discussion in Section 9.4.10). see also apparitivantikausativ (see Section 3.6.6)
| (3.85) | a. | Der Plan scheitert. |
| b. | Der Plan erscheint gescheitert. |
[3.97] (full discussion in Section 9.4.13)
| (3.86) | a. | Der Eigentümer vermietet die Wohnung. |
| b. | Der Eigentümer kriegt die Wohnung vermietet. |
[3.98] (full discussion in Section 9.4.15)
| (3.87) | a. | Der Hund rennt. |
| b. | Der Hund kommt angerannt. |
[3.99] (full discussion in Section 10.4.1 and subsequent sections) dürfen/können/mögen/möchten/müssen/sollen/wollen + Infinitiv, also werden/brauchen
| (3.88) | a. | Ich baue ein Haus. |
| b. | Ich will ein Haus bauen. | |
| c. | Ich werde ein Haus bauen. |
[3.100] (full discussion in Section 10.4.4 and subsequent sections)
| (3.89) | a. | Ich besuche meinen Freund. |
| b. | Ich bin meinen Freund besuchen. | |
| c. | Ich gehe/fahre meinen Freund besuchen. | |
| d. | Ich komme meinen Freund besuchen. |
[3.101] (full discussion in Section 10.4.7)
| (3.90) | a. | Ich schenke dir das Buch. | |
| b. | ? | Ich tu dir das Buch schenken. | |
| c. | Schenken tu ich dir das Buch. |
[3.102] (full discussion in Section 10.4.4)
| (3.91) | a. | Er liegt im Bett. |
| b. | Er bliebt im Bett liegen. |
[3.103] (full discussion in Section 10.4.9) with obligatory adverbial!
| (3.92) | a. | Er lacht. |
| b. | Er hat gut lachen. |
[3.104] (full discussion in Section 11.4.1) “können”
| (3.93) | a. | Die Schüler lösen die Aufgaben. |
| b. | Die Schüler haben die Aufgaben zu lösen. |
[3.105] (full discussion in Section 11.4.2) “müssen”
| (3.94) | a. | Der Lehrer begeistert die Schüler. |
| b. | Der Lehrer weiß die Schüler zu begeistern. |
[3.106] (full discussion in Section 11.4.6) “es passierte”
| (3.95) | a. | Sie stand neben mir. |
| b. | Sie kam neben mir zu stehen. |
[3.107] (full discussion in Section 11.4.7)
| (3.96) | a. | Er seiht einen Film. |
| b. | Er bekommt einen Film zu sehen. |
[3.108] (full discussion in Section 11.4.3)
| (3.97) | a. | Er schläft. |
| b. | Er scheint zu schlafen. |
[3.109] (full discussion in Section 12.4.2)
| (3.98) | a. | Sie schwimmt. Sie geht zum Schwimmen. |
| b. | Das Auto steht vor der Ampel. Das Auto kommt vor der Ampel zum Stehen. |
[3.110] (full discussion in Section 12.4.1)
| (3.99) | a. | Der Feind greift an. |
| b. | Der Feind ist am Angreifen. |
[3.111] The light verbs listed in Table 3.2 occur in more than one derived clause construction. Shown in the table is whether these constructions induce epithesis (E) or diathesis (D).
| Infinitiv | Partizip | zu(m)/am+Inf. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| haben | D+E | D+E | D |
| sein | E | D+E | D+E |
| bleiben | E | D+E | D+E |
| scheinen | – | D+E | E |
| werden | E | D | – |
| bekommen | – | D | E |
| wissen | – | D | E |
| sehen | D | D | – |
| lassen | D | E | E |
| kommen | E | E | E |
[4.1] Diathesis typically involves variation in the marking of case as governed by the verb, possibly including alternations between case marked arguments and adpositional phrases. The notion of ‘flagging’ was (re)introduced in Haspelmath (2005: 2) as a cover term to capture the intuition that case marking and adpositional marking express very similar functions in linguistic marking. The first two data chapters in this book discuss exactly those kind of marking, viz. case and adpositional marking as governed by a verb. This chapter discusses diatheses involving case-marked constituents, and the next chapter focusses on governed prepositional constituents.
[4.2] Covert case-marking diatheses are characterised by one and the same verb that can be used with different case-marked roles and, crucially, no other overt marking of the different constructions. Such alternations include, for example, possessor raising like (4.1 a) or anticausative alternations like (4.1 b).
| (4.1) | a. | Ich schneide seine Haare. Ich schneide ihm die Haare. |
| b. | Ich verbrenne den Tisch. Der Tisch verbrennt. |
[4.3] The crucial (and somewhat problematic) aspect of such alternations is that there is no formal indication of the presence of a diathesis except for the marking of the arguments themselves. The prototypical diathesis (as defined Section 1.2) includes some overt linguistic marking that indicates that a diathesis has taken place (i.e. some affix, particle, light verb, or other morphosyntactic means). And indeed, all diatheses that will be discussed in subsequent chapters will be of that kind. In contrast, the diatheses discussed in this chapter and the next chapter are ‘covert’ alternations, or ‘zero marked’ alternations, in that there is no other indication of a diathesis, except for the marking of the arguments themselves (Zúñiga & Kittilä 2019 introduce the term “covert” diathesis for this). The problem with such covert diatheses is that there is no overt directionality in the alternation – there is no way to distinguish between a base form and a derived form. Both alternants have an equal status as far as the morphosyntax is concerned. I have attempted to infer a direction based on parallels to other diatheses.
[4.4] The unmarked nature of covert diatheses implies that there is some slight redundancy and fuzziness in presentation. This redundancy arises because, for example, when a verb occurs in four different constructions, then there are logically six different alternations (viz. 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 2-3, 2-4, 3-4). I have nonetheless decided to approach the descriptive organisation in this chapter from the perspective of such pairwise alternations, because (i) it highlights the possible connections attested between construction, and (ii) very many verbs appear only to occur in just one or two alternations anyway (with only a smaller subset of verbs appearing across many different constructions).
[4.5] There are seven local groups of diatheses that seem prominent enough to be given a German name. I propose the following names for these:
[4.6] The German case marking system is rather straightforward. Noun phrases in German occur in one of four case forms. There are various syncretisms in the case paradigm, which conceal the identity of the case in many sentences. For this reason, I will attempt to use first/second person singular pronouns or masculine singular nouns in constructed examples. These forms can easily be unambiguously identified, as shown in Table 4.1.
| Case | 1st | 2nd | 3rd Masc. | Masc. noun |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nominative | ich | du | er | der Tisch |
| Genitive | meiner | deiner | seiner | des Tisches |
| Dative | mir | dir | ihm | dem Tisch |
| Accusative | mich | dich | ihn | den Tisch |
[4.7] Basically, almost all case-marked constituents are governed arguments. Yet, there are a few situations (to be discussed in detail below) in which overtly case-marked constituents are not arguments (or, alternatively, a very special type of arguments): quantified objects (4.2 a), named objects (4.2 b), cognate objects (4.2 c), lexicalised noun-verb combinations (4.2 d) and adnominal constituents (4.2 e).
| (4.2) | a. | Er schläft [den ganzen Tag]. |
| b. | Er nennt mich [einen Egoisten]. | |
| c. | Er hat [einen gesunden Schlaf] geschlafen. | |
| d. | Er stirbt [einen qualvollen Tod]. | |
| e. | Ich beschuldige den Verdächtigten [des Diebstahls] von weiteren Gegenständen. |
[4.8] A special kind of arguments are quantified objects (cf. ‘Mensuralergänzung’, Eroms 2000: 203-204), exemplified in (4.3 a-e). Quantified objects are overtly marked accusative objects that often contain numerals, like in (4.3 d) or (4.3 e), in which einen is not an article, but the numeral one. Except for numerals, the quantification can also be instantiated by adjectives (e.g. ganzen in (4.3 a)), indefinites (e.g. jeden in (4.3 b)) or measure phrases (e.g. zu laut in (4.3 c)).
| (4.3) | a. | Er schläft den ganzen Tag. (wie lange? ‘how long’) |
| b. | Er fällt jeden Tag. (wann? ‘when’) | |
| c. | Er hustet einen Tick zu laut. (wie? ‘how’) | |
| d. | Er ist drei mal gefallen. (wie oft? ‘how often’) | |
| e. | Er steigt einen Stock höher. (wo? ‘where’) |
[4.9] These quantified constituents are not governed arguments. First, they can easily be left out (all verbs in the examples are typical intransitive verbs). Second, and more importantly, they cannot be replaced by a pronoun nor be questioned by a question pronoun (viz. wen/was). Instead, they are questioned by adverbial interrogative words as listed at the examples above, indicating that the quantified constituents are adverbial phrases, not governed arguments. Still, there are a few verbs that obligatorily need such a quantified object. These will be discussed in Section 4.3.9.
[4.10] A special group of verbs can be used to performatively name persons or things. As proper names, such arguments are arguably without case in standard German (4.4 a), but with regular nouns these phrases are clearly accusatives (4.4 b). The effect are constructions with two accusative arguments. These arguments are normally questioned by the manner interrogative wie ‘how’, though in some situations was ‘what’ seems possible (4.4 c). The small group of verbs that obligatorily takes such arguments will be discussed in Section 4.3.10.
| (4.4) | a. | Ich nenne dich [ Lukas]. |
| b. | Ich nenne dich [einen Egoisten]. | |
| c. | Was nennst du dein eigen? |
[4.11] There is a special construction available for many verbs to add an object that is a nominalisation of the verb itself, exemplified here in (4.5 a,b).
| (4.5) | a. | Er hat einen gesunden Schlaf geschlafen. |
| b. | Er hat viele Träume geträumt. |
[4.12] This construction is known as a ‘cognate object’ construction (e.g. Levin 1993: 95-96), because the object is etymologically related to the verb. In many cases, this cognate object is simply a zero nominalisation (‘conversion’) of the verb stem (e.g. schlafen - der Schlaf, ‘to sleep - the sleep’), but in some cases different nominalisations like the infinitive are used (e.g. lächeln - das Lächeln, ‘to smile - the smile’).
[4.13] Examples like (4.5 a,b) seem to suggest that intransitive verbs like schlafen ‘to sleep’ and träumen ‘to dream’ allow for accusative arguments. However, besides these cognate objects there are no other accusative arguments allowed with these verbs. Further, such cognate arguments seem to be theoretically possible for all verbs, though often quite some imagination is needed to find a suitable context to use verb and nominalised verb together.
[4.14] Because of their special status, such cognate object nominalisations are not counted as regular arguments. However, nominalisations are an interesting aspect of diathesis in itself and will be discussed extensively in Chapter 14.
[4.15] There is a common pattern in German in which nouns are combined with a verb, like eislaufen ‘ice skating’. Such constructions are highly reminiscent of the typologically widespread process of noun incorporation. However, in German such noun incorporation only occurs with individual lexeme combinations, so they are probably better interpreted as grammaticalised noun-verb collocations (Eisenberg 2013: 324-327; Gallmann 1999; 2015).
[4.16] Most such combinations are written as separate words in German orthography, e.g. Wache stehen ‘stand guard’, so they might look like nominal arguments. However, they normally do not allow for any determiners or modifiers (4.6 a). Only very few fixed combinations allow for an adjective (4.6 b) and/or a determiner (4.6 c).
| (4.6) | a. | Er hat (*das) Blut gehustet. |
| b. | Er hat bittere Tränen geweint. | |
| c. | Er stirbt einen qualvollen Tod. |
[4.17] The typical examples like Blut ‘blood’ in (4.6 a) do not show much indication of case-marking. It is clearly not a genitive (because then it should have been Blutes), but nominative, dative or accusative are all possible. The few examples with determiners and/or adjectives seem to indicate that these constituents are accusatives. However, even in undoubtedly accusative examples like (4.6 c) the accusative is not an argument, because it is strange (if not completely ungrammatical) to pronominalise (4.7 a) or question (4.7 b) this accusative. Just like cognate objects, such nouns in lexicalised noun-verb combinations are not arguments.
| (4.7) | a. | * | Er stirbt es. |
| b. | ? | Was ist er gestorben? |
[4.18] Semantically, adnominal constituents are easily identified as modifiers inside a noun phrase. However, there is no formal difference between adnominal and sentential case-marked constituents, leading possibly to ambiguous sentences like (4.8 a). In this sentence, both the accusative constituent for the accusee den Verdächtigen and the genitive constituent for the accusation des Diebstahls can be read as arguments being governed by the verb beschuldigen ‘to accuse’ (4.8 b). Alternatively, these two constituents can be interpreted as a single complex noun phrase, as can be seen by the possibility to add a further constituent describing a different accusation (4.8 c). Adnominal constituents are (obviously) not arguments.
| (4.8) | a. | Ich beschuldige den Verdächtigten des Diebstahls. |
| b. | Ich beschuldige [den Verdächtigten] vor Gericht [des Diebstahls]. | |
| c. | Ich beschuldige [den Verdächtigten des Diebstahls] von weiteren Gegenständen. |
[4.19] Before delving into the actual alternations, I will first present an inventory of verbs that do not show alternation as far as flagging is concerned. These verbs can, and many will, occur in other diatheses as discussed in subsequent chapters, but for the alternations discussed in this chapter (on case-marked arguments) and the next chapter (on prepositional arguments) these verbs are invariable. The most interesting insight from building this collection is that it is not easy at all to find verbs that do not allow for at least some kind of flagging variation.
[4.20] Some verbs do not need any argument at all, not even a nominative subject. These include the well-known weather verbs like schneien ‘to snow’ (4.9 a). However, most weather verb actually allow for some nominative subjects as well (4.9 b), see Section 4.6.1, or accusative arguments (4.9 c), see Section 4.8.2. There do not seem to be any verbs that only allow for a constructions without any arguments.
| (4.9) | a. | Heute schneit es. |
| b. | Die Granaten regneten auf uns. | |
| c. | Gestern hat es riesengroße Körner gehagelt. |
[4.21] Some verbs only allow a Nominative argument, which necessarily also shows agreement with the finite verb. Such verbs are traditionally called ‘intransitive’. The verbs discussed in this section are strictly intransitive, in that they do not allow for any other case marked arguments or governed prepositions (see Section 5.2). Intransitive verbs, of course, allow for additional non-governed prepositional phrases, e.g. locational (4.10 a) or temporal phrases (4.10 b), instrumental/comitative phrases with mit (4.10 c,d), or beneficiary/goal phrases with für (4.10 e,f).
| (4.10) | a. | Er reist immer in die Berge. |
| b. | Er reist immer am Wochenende. | |
| c. | Er reist immer mit seinem Koffer. | |
| d. | Er reist immer mit seinem Freund. | |
| e. | Er reist immer für seinen Chef. | |
| f. | Er reist immer für seine Arbeit. |
[4.22] An attempt has been made below to classify the examples of strictly intransitive verbs into broad semantic categories. However, these categories are in no way intended as definitional for the kind of verbs allowed in this class. Yet, the semantic categories attested give a good indication of the kind of verbs that tend to be strictly intransitive. Note that this list is in no way intended to be exhaustive, but only illustrative.
[4.23] Attested Verbs
[4.24] Notes
[4.25] Some of the ‘living’ verbs allow for accusative arguments in non-living related meanings.
| (4.11) | a. | Ich ziehe meine Hose aus. |
| b. | Ich ziehe eine Wand ein. | |
| c. | Ich ziehe den Zaun um. | |
| d. | Ich ziehe die Karre weg. |
[4.26] The verbs in this class are strict transitives: they need a nominative subject argument and an additional accusative argument. Further arguments are not allowed, and no governed prepositions are allowed either. It turns out that this group is not very large, because very many verbs allow for dative arguments (traditionally called ‘free’ datives, but that term will be ignored here) or alternations with governed prepositions. For example, an apparently typical transitive verb like bauen ‘to build’ allows for a dative to mark the beneficiary of the building, as in Ich baue dir ein Haus ‘I will build a house for you’. Conversely, there are also many apparently typical transitive verbs that can just as well be used without accusative object, including well-known ambitransitive verbs like essen ‘to eat’. Still, the current set of verbs attested for this class can easily be extended and is not at all intended to be complete.
[4.27] Verbprefixes and verbparticles (see Chapter 7) regularly induce an applicative alternation and subsequently often lexicalise, leading to transitive verbs (4.12 a,b).
| (4.12) | a. | Ich schreite über den Teppich. |
| b. | Ich schreite den Teppich ab. |
[4.28] The number of monomorphemic ‘strictly’ transitive verbs seems to be very limited. I could not find any obvious semantic categorisation of these verbs, so they are simply presented in alphabetical order here.
[4.29] Attested Verbs
[4.30] Examples
[4.31] The verbs in this class need both a nominative subject argument and a second dative argument. Both arguments cannot be dropped (except in extremely marked meta-linguistic contexts) and no other case-marked arguments or governed prepositions are possible. I could not find any obvious semantic categorisation of these verbs, so they are simply presented in alphabetical order here.
[4.32] Attested Verbs
[4.33] Examples
[4.34] Notes
[4.35] The following verbs also exist as intransitive ‘only nominative’ verbs (see Section 4.3.2), but in a clearly different lexical meanings.
[4.36] There are a few verbs in German that have a genitive argument. These verbs are slowly disappearing from the German language, and many of the verbs that are still around are considered rather old fashioned. It is out of an aim of completeness that these verbs are listed here, as they do not play an important role anymore in the current German language. The verbs listed here need a genitive Argument and there seems to be no possibility for alternations with other case or adpositional marking.
[4.37] Attested Verbs
[4.38] Examples
[4.39] This class consists of the classical ditransitive verbs with an obligatory nominative, accusative and dative argument. It turns out to be extremely hard to find good examples of verbs that, at least in the large majority of its uses, always overtly shows all three arguments. Most apparent ditransitive verbs, like geben ‘to give’, easily allow for the dative to be dropped or replaced by a prepositional phrase (for the verb geben, see De Vaere, De Cuypere & Willems 2018 for an in-depth study). The few remaining obligatorily ditransitive verbs seem to be semantically more specialised verbs, in which a very specific meaning is forcing the overt marking of all three roles, in contrast to the more broader semantic range of a verb like geben.
[4.40] Attested Verbs
[4.41] Examples
[4.42] There are also verbs that allow nominative, accusative and genitive, but those verbs often have a possible alternation dropping the genitive, which will be discussed in Section 4.7.8. In a few cases, the genitive argument seems to be in the process to be replaced by an accusative (see Sections [Section 4.9.5; sec:case-genitive-accusative-dative-swap]).
[4.43] There are a few situations in which verbs allow for two accusative objects, like with lehren (4.13 a) or abfragen (4.13 b). However, all of these verbs also allow for other constructions, either dropping one of the accusative arguments (see Section 4.7.2) or allowing an alternation between an accusative and a dative (see Section 4.9.4). There do not seem to be any verbs that obligatorily need two accusative objects.
| (4.13) | a. | Er lehrt mich den Trick. |
| b. | Er fragt mich den Stoff ab. |
[4.44] Double accusatives further regularly appear with quantified objects (4.14 a), see Section 4.3.9, and named objects (4.14 b), see Section 4.3.10. Also these verbs regularly allow for one of the accusatives to be dropped (4.14 c,d).
| (4.14) | a. | Das Buch kostet mich keinen Pfennig. |
| b. | Ich nenne dich einen Egoisten. | |
| c. | Das Buch kostet viel. | |
| d. | Er nennt den Namen des Kindes. |
[4.45] A special kind of arguments are quantified objects (cf. ‘Mensuralergänzung’, Eroms 2000: 203-204), exemplified in (4.15 a-e). Quantified objects are overtly marked accusative objects that often contain numerals (like in (4.15 d) or (4.15 e), in which einen is not an article, but the numeral one). Except for numerals, the quantification can also be instantiated by adjectives (like ganzen in (4.15 a)), indefinites (like jeden in (4.15 b)) or measure phrases (like zu laut in (4.15 c)).
| (4.15) | a. | Er schläft den ganzen Tag. (wie lange? ‘how long’) |
| b. | Er fällt jeden Tag. (wann? ‘when’) | |
| c. | Er hustet einen Tick zu laut. (wie? ‘how’) | |
| d. | Er ist drei mal gefallen. (wie oft? ‘how often’) | |
| e. | Er steigt einen Stock höher. (wo? ‘where’) |
[4.46] These quantified constituents are not governed arguments. First, they can easily be left out (all verbs in the examples are typical intransitive verbs). Second, and more importantly, they cannot be replaced by a pronoun nor be questioned by a question pronoun (viz. wen/was). Instead, they are questioned by adverbial interrogative words as listed at the examples above, indicating that the quantified constituents are adverbial phrases, not governed arguments.
[4.47] Yet, there is a special class of verbs that appear to obligatorily need such a quantified object. These objects are interrogated by wie viel? ‘how much’ (though interrogation with was ‘what’ seems also possible with some of them). Though debatable, I tend to classify these accusative constituents as arguments. Whatever the interpretation, when they are arguments, but also when these constituents are not considered to be arguments, then there is still something special with these verbs.
[4.48] A further argument to consider these accusative constituents as something special is that these verbs cannot be passivised, just like typical intransitive verbs (4.16 a). Even with non-quantified objects, these verbs still prohibit passivisation (4.16 b).
| (4.16) | a. | Die Aussage kostet sie den Wahlsieg. |
| b. | Ich bin der Herausforderung gewachsen. |
[4.49] An exception to this rule blocking passivisation for quantified objects are the verbs verdienen and zahlen. They can be used with quantified objects (4.17 b) and with non-quantified objects (4.17 a), similarly to kosten above. However, with these verbs passivisation is possible (4.17 c,d), so these verbs are considered to be taking regular accusative objects.
| (4.17) | a. | Er verdient 50 Euro. Er verdient den Nobelpreis. |
| b. | Er zahlt (mir) 50 Euro. Er zahlt (mir) die Miete. | |
| c. | Praktisch der gesamte Umsatz wird mit Werbung verdient. | |
| d. | Die Miete wird monatlich gezahlt. |
[4.50] Attested Verbs
[4.51] Examples
[4.52] A special group of verbs can be used to performatively name persons or things. As proper names, such arguments are arguably without case in standard German (4.18 a), but with regular nouns these phrases are clearly accusatives (4.18 b). The effect are constructions with two accusative arguments. These arguments are normally questioned by the manner interrogative wie ‘how’, though in some situations was ‘what’ seems possible (4.18 c).
| (4.18) | a. | Ich nenne dich [ Lukas]. |
| b. | Ich nenne dich [einen Egoisten]. | |
| c. | Was nennst du dein eigen? |
[4.53] The name in such naming constructions cannot be passivised (4.19 a,b), which also indicates that these accusative arguments have a special status in the grammar of the German language.
| (4.19) | a. | Du wirst einen Egoisten genannt. | |
| b. | * | Ein Egoist wird dich genannt. |
[4.54] Attested Verbs
[4.55] Examples
[4.56] Alternations without diathesis do not exist by definition for ‘bare’ alternations as discussed in this chapter. As noted in the introduction, this chapter discusses alternations that are only recognisable by the fact that there is a diathesis, without any other linguistic indication of the valency alternation. In other chapters this category will be well represented.
[4.57] In German, the nominative constituent shows agreement with the verb. It is typically not possible to have a sentence without this nominative constituent. For the few verbs that allow the nominative to be absent, a dummy pronoun es has to be inserted (see Section X for more details on this pronoun). For weather verbs like regnen ‘to rain’ it is arguably not a nominative that is dropped, but a nominative that is optionally added. I will discuss these two situation separately, although there is no overt grammatical distinction between a verb that allows for an optional nominative drop or an optional nominative addition (see Section 4.6.1 for the nominative addition). For some intransitive ‘dispersion’ verbs like stinken ‘to stink’ (4.20 a) it is possible to leave out the origin of the dispersion (4.20 b) to indicate the effect without knowledge of the cause.
| (4.20) | a. | Der Müll stinkt. |
| b. | Hier stinkt es aber. |
[4.58] Attested Verbs
[4.59] Examples
[4.60] A few further apparent dropped nominatives are discussed here for completeness sake. They all appear to be highly idiosyncratic. The first phenomenon is the drop of the nominative with the verb geben when used in the meaning of ‘to produce’ (4.21 a,b).
| (4.21) | a. | Die Trauben geben dieses Jahr einen guten Wein. |
| b. | Dieses Jahr gibt es einen guten Wein. |
[4.61] Attested Verbs
[4.62] Examples
[4.63] Some verbs with nominative and dative allow for the nominative to be dropped and replaced by a valency-simulating pronoun es (4.22 a,b). In most cases of a pronoun es with a dative, the pronoun es is either phoric (4.23 a) or position-simulating (4.23 b), both of which do not count as the drop of an argument.
| (4.22) | a. | Das Buch gefällt mir. |
| b. | Hier gefällt es mir gar nicht. |
| (4.23) | a. | Es galt mir. |
| b. | Es ist mir ein Unfall widerfahren. |
[4.64] Attested Verbs
[4.65] A few verbs with nominative and genitive arguments allow the nominative to be dropped, but the genitive to be retained (4.24 a-d).
| (4.24) | a. | Der Kranke bedarf der Ruhe. |
| b. | Hier bedarf es körperlicher Kraft. | |
| c. | Der Vorwurf entbehrt jeglichen Beweises. | |
| d. | Insofern entbehrt es jeglichen Beweises. |
[4.66] Attested Verbs
[4.67] A typical anticausative verb allows for both a transitive (4.25 a) and an intransitive (4.25 b) in which the intransitive nominative is the same participant as the accusative from the transitive. This is attested by verbs like kochen ‘to cook’ (a,b). However, with this verb the Perfect of the intransitive exist both with auxiliaries haben (4.25 c) and sein (4.25 d). Semantically, the haben construction (4.25 c) seems to be the regular Perfect of the intransitive (4.25 b). The sein construction (4.25 d) is probably best analysed as the ‘Zustandspassiv’ (see Section X) of the transitive (4.25 a). Levin (1993: 31) used the label “Induced Action Alternation” for a similar alternation in English.
| (4.25) | a. | Ich koche den Kaffee. |
| b. | Der Kaffee kocht. | |
| c. | Der Kaffee hat gekocht. | |
| d. | Der Kaffee ist gekocht. |
[4.68] Because this diathesis is unmarked it is difficult to decide whether this should be classified as an anticausative or as a causative. Because of the option for a ‘Zustandspassiv’ I have categorised this alternation here as an anticausative (cf. Scheibl 2006: 355). A highly similar construction with only a singly intransitive Perfekt auxiliary is discussed below as a causative (see Section 4.6.2).
[4.69] Attested Verbs
[4.70] Examples
[4.71] Notes
[4.72] A causative reading seems to be available with duschen ‘to take a shower’ (4.26 a). With an accusative this verbs means ‘to give something else a shower’ (4.26 b). However, both intransitive Perfekt auxiliaries haben and sein are possible (4.26 c,d), so I classify this alternation here with the anticausatives. A parallel situation arises with baden ‘to bathe’.
| (4.26) | a. | Ich dusche. |
| b. | Ich dusche den Elefanten. | |
| c. | Ich habe geduscht. | |
| d. | Der Elefant ist geduscht. |
[4.73] The verb abnehmen is possibly better analysed as two different lexemes, either with the meaning ‘to take away’ (4.27 a) or ‘to reduce’ (4.27 b).
| (4.27) | a. | Ich habe (dir) den Ausweis abgenommen. Der Ausweis ist (dir) abgenommen. |
| b. | Der Regen hat abgenommen. |
[4.74] The verb anhalten appears to be an exception. In the meaning ‘to stop’ this verb can clearly be used both transitively and intransitively with a haben Perfect (4.28 a). However, the sein Zustandspassiv is not possible (4.28 b). The lexeme anhalten has another meaning, viz. ‘to admonish’ which does allow the sein Zustandspassiv (4.28 c).
| (4.28) | a. | Ich habe den Bus angehalten. Der Bus hat angehalten. |
|
| b. | * | Der Bus ist angehalten. | |
| c. | Ich habe meinen Sohn angehalten, pünktlich zu sein. Mein Sohn ist angehalten (von mir) |
[4.75] Some haben anticausative verbs have an obligatory dative (4.29 c). However, note the different participles in (4.29 a,b).
| (4.29) | a. | Ich habe meinem Widersacher einen Prozess angehängt. | |
| b. | Er hat einer Illusion angehangen. | ||
| c. | * | Ich habe angehangen. |
[4.76] Attested Verbs
[4.77] For weather verbs (4.30), semantically it seems to be rather clear that the addition of an agent is an extension to a basically avalent verb. However, formally there is no difference between the notion of ‘nominative addition’ as discussed in this section and a ‘nominative drop’ as discussed in Section 4.5.1.
| (4.30) | a. | Es weht. |
| b. | Der Wind weht. |
[4.78] Such addition of an agent appears to be rare. It is crucial to distinguish agent-like subjects that are the originators of the phenomenon expressed by the verb, like Wind ‘wind’ in (4.30 b), from patient-like subjects that are propelled by the phenomenon, like Blätter ‘leaves’ (4.31 a). With such patient-like subjects a locational phrase is necessary. These constructions are discussed in Section 5.8.3.
| (4.31) | a. | Die Blätter wehen durch die Luft. | |
| b. | * | Die Blätter wehen. |
[4.79] Another different diathesis adding arguments to weather verbs is the addition of objects, discussed in Section 4.8.2.
[4.80] Attested Verbs
[4.81] Examples
[4.82] A typical causative verb allows for both a transitive (4.32 a) and an intransitive (4.32 b,c) in which the nominative of the intransitive is the same as the accusative from the transitive.
| (4.32) | a. | Der Junge zerbricht den Krug. | |
| b. | Der Krug zerbricht. | ||
| c. | Der Krug ist zerbrochen. | ||
| d. | * | Der Krug hat zerbrochen. |
[4.83] There is a crucial difference between the verbs discussed here that only have a perfect with sein in the intransitive (4.32 c,d) and the anticausatives that allow for both haben and sein in the intransitive Perfekt (see Section 4.5.5).
[4.84] The intransitive Perfekt with sein is strongly reminiscent of an anticausative construction known in German linguistics as the ‘Zustandspassiv’ (see Section X). However, that construction is available for a much larger group of predicates like bauen ‘to build’ (4.33 a-c). Crucially different from zerbrechen, a verb like bauen does not allow for the anticausative to occur in the present tense (4.33 b).
| (4.33) | a. | Der Junge baut ein Haus. | |
| b. | * | Das Haus baut. | |
| c. | Das Haus ist gebaut. |
[4.85] Although there is no overt difference between an unmarked anticausative and an unmarked causative, I opted to call this alternation a causative. Verbs like zerbrechen that allow for a sein bare anticausative are typically verbs that describe a process that can be caused by a natural process, although this process can also be instigated by an external agent.
[4.86] Attested Verbs
[4.87] Examples
[4.88] Originally based on a Germanic suffix -jan, which turned into an umlaut, some verbs have a different between an intransitive (e.g. fallen, ‘to fall’) and a causative (e.g. fällen).
| (4.34) | a. | Der Baum ist gefallen. |
| b. | Ich habe den Baum gefällt. |
[4.89] Attested Verbs
[4.90] Examples
[4.91] The process to make a causative with the suffix -jan also applied to adjectival predicates. There are still a few remnants of such pairs found in contemporary German, in which the old suffix is retained as an umlaut (4.35). More cases are available with preverbs, see Section 7.6.2.
| (4.35) | a. | Die Kiste ist schwarz. |
| b. | Ich schwärze den Text. |
[4.92] Attested Verbs
[4.93] Some verbs with experiences subjects needed an accusative subject in older stages of German (Nübling et al. 2006: 103-104), but these either were completely lost (4.36 a), or tend to be replaced by a nominative (4.36 b,c). The verb frieren ‘to be cold’ with a human experiencer is currently in the middle of this transition, allowing for both constructions.
| (4.36) | a. | Mich dürstet. |
| b. | Mich friert. | |
| c. | Ich friere. |
[4.94] Attested Verbs
[4.95] This section concerns those alternation in which a non-nominative case-marked argument can be removed. When considered in this direction (‘an accusative is removed/demoted’), then such alternation are known as antipassives. Conversely, when this same alternation is considered in reverse (‘an accusative is added/promoted’) then such alternations are known as applicatives. Because we are dealing with unmarked ‘bare’ alternations in this chapter, there is no structural difference between these two situations. It is more like two different ways to look at at the same phenomenon. Still, I have tried to classify diathesis into these two options based on (debatable) semantic arguments.
[4.96] Drops, or bare/zero antipassives, i.e. the removal of an accusative object, is a well-known phenomenon under the name of ambitransitive or labile verbs, typically exemplified with the verb essen ‘to eat’ (4.37 a,b). However, essen will not be considered an example of strictly bare antipassive here, because the object can also be turned into a prepositional phrase (4.37 c). All such prepositional antipassives (see Section 5.7.6) also seem to allow a bare antipassive expression, so they will not be repeated here.
| (4.37) | a. | Ich esse einen Apfel. |
| b. | Ich esse gerne. | |
| c. | Ich esse von dem Apfel. |
[4.97] Also, there are verbs with an accusative and a dative argument (4.38 a) that allow both to be dropped (4.38 b,c). These are also discussed elsewhere (see Section 5.7.9) and will not be repeated here.
| (4.38) | a. | Ich backe dir einen Kuchen. |
| b. | Ich backe einen Kuchen. | |
| c. | Ich backe gerade. |
[4.98] Similarly, dropping of an accusative argument is very widespread when focus is placed on the action itself. In such contexts typically the addition of an adverbial constructions seems necessary (see Section 8.7.1).
| (4.39) | a. | Ich sehe das Haus. |
| b. | ? Ich sehe. | |
| c. | Ich sehe gut. |
[4.99] What is left over is just an apparently very small group of transitive verbs that allow for the accusative to be dropped – and not allow for a (free) dative, nor for a prepositional antipassive. These verbs are formally similar to verbs that allow for an accusative to be added (see Section 4.8.1). The only difference between these two classes is a (rather vague) semantic intuition about whether the intransitive or the transitive meaning is more ‘basic’.
[4.100] Attested Verbs
[4.101] Examples
[4.102] Most verbs that allow for two accusative arguments allow for one of these arguments to be dropped (4.40 a,b). In some situations even both can be dropped (4.40 c).
| (4.40) | a. | Er lehrt mich den Trick. |
| b. | Er lehrt den Koran. | |
| c. | Er lehrt an einer Hochschule. |
[4.103] Double accusatives also regularly appear with quantified objects (4.41 a,) and named objects (b, see Section X). Also these verbs regularly allow for one of the accusatives to be dropped (4.41 c,d).
| (4.41) | a. | Das Buch kostet mich keinen Pfennig. |
| b. | Ich nenne dich einen Egoisten. | |
| c. | Das Buch kostet viel. | |
| d. | Er nennt den Namen des Kindes. |
[4.104] Attested Verbs
[4.105] Examples
[4.106] Notes
[4.107] The verb unterrichten ‘to instruct, to notify’ also allows for two different accusative objects, either referring to the recipient of the teaching (4.42 a) or the object of the teaching (4.42 b). However, these two accusative objects do not seem to occur together easily. When the recipient is in the accusative, the object typically uses a prepositional phrase (4.42 c). Then the object is in the accusative, the recipient is normally not expressed. Note though that both these accusative objects can be passivised (4.42 d,e).
| (4.42) | a. | Ich unterrichte dich. |
| b. | Ich unterrichte den Koran. | |
| c. | Ich unterrichte dich über den Koran. | |
| d. | Du wirst unterrichtet. | |
| e. | Der Koran wird unterrichtet. |
[4.108] This is the pattern as attested with the verb danken ‘to thank’ as exemplified in (4.43 a-c). The accusative can be left out, but only when the dative is retained. The dative cannot be dropped. This seems to be very rare. There seems to be a generalisation that the accusative can normally not be dropped before also a governed dative is dropped (see also Section 5.7). Note that the sentence in (4.43 a) appears to be rejected by many German speakers, but it is clearly attested.17
| (4.43) | a. | Ich danke dem Arzt mein Leben. | |
| b. | Ich danke dem Arzt. | ||
| c. | * | Ich danke mein Leben. |
[4.109] This pattern of danken might have arisen out of a confusion of danken with verdanken. The verb danken allows for a governed preposition für instead of the accusative (4.44 a). In contrast, verdanken needs an accusative and a dative (7.50 b-d).
| (4.44) | a. | Ich danke dir für mein Leben. | |
| b. | Ich verdanke dir mein Leben. | ||
| c. | * | Ich verdanke dir. | |
| d. | * | Ich verdanke mein Leben. |
[4.110] Attested Verbs
[4.111] Verbs that take a dative, but do not allow for an accusative, are well attested, though not very frequent in German. Some of those verbs do not allow the dative to be dropped (see Section 4.3.4) and a few allow for the dative to be replaced by a prepositional phrase (see Section 5.7.8) or by a possessor (see Section 4.8.3).
[4.112] In this section only those verbs are listed for which the only alternative for the dative is a complete drop. A few of the verbs in this class only allow for inanimate subjects, so these might be a special subclass (e.g. beiliegen, bevorstehen, gelingen, geschehen, sitzen). This difference can be formally shown by considering the possibility to replace the nominative subject with an embedded zu-Infinitive clause.
[4.113] Attested Verbs
[4.114] Examples
[4.115] Ditransitive verbs like verbieten ‘to prohibit’ (4.45 a-c), that allow for the dative but not the accusative to be dropped, are common. Semantically, this diathesis seem to be restricted to performative verbs.
| (4.45) | a. | Ich verbiete dir das Rauchen. | |
| b. | * | Ich verbiete dir. | |
| c. | Ich verbiete das Rauchen. |
[4.116] Attested Verbs
[4.117] Examples
[4.118] Notes
[4.119] The verb nahelegen is is used without dative with inanimate subjects (4.46 a), but with dative in case of an animate subject (4.46 b).
| (4.46) | a. | Das Foto hat seine Verwicklung in das Doping-System nahegelegt. |
| b. | Der Trainer hat ihm das Doping nahegelegt. |
[4.120] Although it is not impossible, it seems to be rather unusual for ‘real’ ditransitive verbs like vorlesen ’to read aloud* (4.47 a) to allow for either the accusative (4.47 b) or the dative (4.47 c) to be dropped.
| (4.47) | a. | Ich lese dir ein Buch vor. |
| b. | Ich lese dir vor. | |
| c. | Ich lese ein Buch vor. |
[4.121] Attested Verbs
[4.122] This theoretically possible diathesis is listed here only for completeness sake, as there do not seem to be any genuine examples attested in contemporary German. Genitive arguments without accusative are extremely unusual, and vanishing from the German language (see Section 4.3.5). Also genitive antipassive are practically unattested (see Section 5.7.12). Genitive arguments with an additional accusative argument seem to be slightly more common (see Sections 4.7.8-5.7.13)
[4.123] As there are already very few verbs with genitive arguments in German, there appear to be not even a handful of genitive ditransitives, i.e. verbs that can occur with nominative, accusative and genitive arguments. On closer inspection, all such verbs allow for alternative constructions in which the genitive argument is changed. The verbs in this class allow for the complete drop of the genitive argument. Some further verbs with genitive and accusative arguments allow for a von prepositional phrase instead of a genitive (see Section 5.7.13).
[4.124] Attested Verbs
[4.125] Examples
[4.126] I have tried to separate in this chapter between the demotion of an object (antipassive or drop, see Section 4.7) and the promotion of an accusative (applicative or addition). However, for ‘bare’ diatheses I cannot find any substantive difference between these phenomena, except for a faint semantic impression that bare applicatives do not imply an accusative object (but allow it), while bare antipassive imply an accusative object (but allow it to be dropped). It remains a clear desideratum to put this intuitive differentiation on stricter grammatical footing.
[4.127] There are various kinds of objects that can be added to apparent intransitives with a resultative meaning. For example: a competitive entity in sports (4.48 a), the result of an action (4.48 b), the name of the result of an action (4.48 c) and possibly many other (4.48 d,e).
| (4.48) | a. | Er ist/hat den Marathon gelaufen. |
| b. | Er ist/hat den Salto gesprungen. | |
| c. | Er hat den Tango getanzt. | |
| d. | Er hat den Staub geatmet. | |
| e. | Er hat den Tatort geschaut. |
[4.128] A similar phenomenon is attested with ‘manner of speaking’ verbs like stottern ‘to stutter’ (4.49 a). Such verbs can take an accusative object with a meaning like ‘He uttered something in a stuttering manner’ (4.49 b). Note that by adding a possessed prepositional phrase (4.49 c), see Section 5.8.4, it is even possible to use a possessor-dative alternation (4.49 d), see Section 5.8.11, leading to an apparently ‘intransitive’ verb with a dative, accusative and a non-droppable locational argument.
| (4.49) | a. | Er stotterte vor Aufregung |
| b. | Er stotterte eine Entschuldigung. | |
| c. | Ich flüsterte die Lösung in sein Ohr. | |
| d. | Ich flüsterte ihm die Lösung ins Ohr. |
[4.129] Attested Verbs
[4.130] Examples
[4.131] A few of the verbs that allow for the nominative to be absent (see Section 4.6.1) can have an accusative object without a nominative, although this possibility seems to be strongly limited to weather phenomena (4.50 a,b) and is often used metaphorically (4.51).
| (4.50) | a. | Im Jahre 1932 hagelte es einen Schauer neuer Gesetze. |
| b. | Gestern hat es riesengroße Körner gehagelt. |
| (4.51) | Es schneit Absagen |
[4.132] Attested Verbs
[4.133] Examples
[4.134] For some verbs, the dative is an alternative expression of the possessor of the nominative (4.52 a,b). The participant is crucially the same person in these two expressions, as can be seen by the possibility of (4.52 c) but the impossibility of (4.52 d).
| (4.52) | a. | Mir brennen die Füße. | |
| b. | Meine Füße brennen. | ||
| c. | Meine Füße brennen mir. | ||
| d. | * | Meine Füße brennen dir. |
[4.135] Attested Verbs
[4.136] Examples
[4.137] Notes
[4.138] Coreference (“reflexive double marking”) is possible (4.53 a), but in the third person this does not lead to a reflexive pronoun sich (4.53 b,c):
| (4.53) | a. | Mir stinken meine Socken. | |
| b. | Ihm stinken seine Socken. | ||
| c. | * | Sich stinken seine Socken. |
[4.139] It might seem that bare causative verbs like abbrennen, see Section 4.6.2 also allow for this alternation (4.54 a,b). However, there is no necessary coreference between the dative and the possessor in these cases (4.54 c).
| (4.54) | a. | Das Haus brennt mir ab. |
| b. | Mein Haus brennt ab. | |
| c. | Mein Haus brennt dir ab. |
[4.140] A widespread dative alternation is the so-called possessor-dative raising. More specifically, in ditransitive datives, the dative can be reformulated as the possessor of the accusative (4.55 a,b).
| (4.55) | a. | Ich schneide ihm die Haare. |
| b. | Ich schneide seine Haare. |
[4.141] This alternation occurs with all verbs with the von and für dative antipassive (see Section 5.7.9). Additionally, there are many verbs in the realm of destruction and repair.
[4.142] Attested Verbs
[4.143] Examples
[4.144] Notes
[4.145] There is an interesting difference between the für alternant (4.56 b) and the possessive alternant (4.56 c) of the same verb, showing that there is an ambiguity of the datives in (4.56 a).
| (4.56) | a. | Ich koche dir eine Suppe. |
| b. | Ich koche eine Suppe für dich. (Das ist mein Plan, vielleicht kriegst du die Suppe aber nie) | |
| c. | Ich koche deine Suppe. (Die Suppe, die du bestellt hast) |
| (4.57) | a. | Ich beantworte dir eine Frage. |
| b. | Ich beantworte eine Frage für dich. (weil du es willst) | |
| c. | Ich beantworte deine Frage. (die du gestellt hast) |
[4.146] Likewise, there is a similar difference between the von alternant (4.58 b) and the possessive alternant (4.58 c) of the dative in (4.58 a).
| (4.58) | a. | Ich klaue dir die Blumen. |
| b. | Ich klaue die Blumen von dir. | |
| c. | Ich klaue deine Blumen. |
[4.147] The verb erwarten ‘to expect’ has a very exceptional valency alternation in that the accusative and nominative arguments can be reversed with a very similar meaning (4.59 a,b). There is a slight difference in meaning between ‘to expect’ (4.59 a) and ‘to be imminent’ (4.59 b).
| (4.59) | a. | Er erwartet einen Test. |
| b. | Der Test erwartet ihn. |
[4.148] This alternation is possibly best interpreted as the effect of two different metaphorical extensions of warten ‘to wait for’. The first extension is from ‘to wait for’ (4.60 a) to ‘to expect’ (4.60 b). The second usage of warten is typically found with inanimate subjects, meaning roughly ‘to be ready for the objects arrival’ (4.60 c). This second meaning the metaphorical extension leads to the meaning ‘to be imminent’ (4.60 d).
| (4.60) | a. | Ich warte auf den Test. |
| b. | Ich erwarte den Test. | |
| c. | Zuhause wartet ein Geschenk auf dich. | |
| d. | Ein Geschenk erwartet dich. |
[4.149] Attested Verbs
[4.150] I know of only a few verbs with this very special passive-like diathesis (4.61 a,b). There are a few more cases of this alternation with reflexive marking see Section 6.9.1. Note that the alternant with the dative (4.61 b) needs a very special adverbial, typically nichts, was, or wenig (negative polarity).
| (4.61) | a. | Der Arbeiter nutzt den Hebel. |
| b. | Der Hebel nutzt dem Arbeiter wenig. |
[4.151] Attested Verbs
[4.152] Examples
[4.153] Some verbs allow for the same role being expressed with different case marking. These seem to be all incidental cases, mostly verbs in the midst of a diachronic change.
[4.154] A few experiencer verbs with an original accusative argument are currently considered rather old-fashioned in German (4.62 a). Instead of the original accusative sometimes they are attested with a dative (4.62 b). Note that some of these verbs also have a governed preposition (4.62 c) and a reflexive alternation (4.62 d).
| (4.62) | a. | Mich graut. |
| b. | Mir graut. | |
| c. | Mich ekelt vor dem Spinat. | |
| d. | Ich ekle mich vor dem Essen. |
[4.155] Attested Verbs
[4.156] A few of the verbs that allow for two accusative objects appear to disambiguate this situation by optionally changing one of the accusative arguments to a dative (4.63 a,b).
| (4.63) | a. | Er lehrt mich den Trick. |
| b. | Er lehrt mir den Trick. |
[4.157] Attested Verbs
[4.158] Examples
[4.159] Notes
[4.160] The verb nennen seems to have a rather clear semantic change between ‘to name’ (with two accusative arguments) and ‘to mention’ (with an accusative and a dative argument).
[4.161] The verb achten ‘to watch for, to respect’ has a somewhat old-fashioned alternative possibility to take a genitive argument, but only as negative polarity element. Most examples have an explicit negation, but examples with niemand ‘nobody’ or gering ‘a bit’ are also attested (see examples below). The more widespread usage of an accusative argument (also without negation) can be used in the same meaning.
| (4.64) | a. | Man achtete unser nicht. |
| b. | Man achtete uns nicht. |
[4.162] Attested Verbs
[4.163] Examples
[4.164] The verb versichern ‘to assure’ appears to be a combination of the previous two alternations. The apparently older usage with accusative and genitive (4.65 a) exists with an alternative construction with dative and accusative (4.65 b). This ‘double swap’ was possible because most sentences with versichern have a subordinate clause instead of a clear genitive/accusative (4.65 c,d). The theoretical intermediate stages (with genitive/dative or double accusative) are unattested (4.65 e,f).
| (4.65) | a. | Ich versichere dich meines Vertrauens. | |
| b. | Ich versichere dir mein Vertrauen. | ||
| c. | Ich versichere dich, dass ich dir vertraue. | ||
| d. | Ich versichere dir, dass ich dir vertraue. | ||
| e. | * | Ich versichere dich mein Vertrauen. | |
| f. | * | Ich versichere dir meines Vertrauens. |
[4.165] Attested Verbs
[5.1] In this chapter only those alternations are considered that involve a change in pure flagging, i.e. between case-marked constituents and prepositional phrases. There are many different alternations that involve prepositions, like antipassives (5.1 a), see Section 5.7.6, anticausatives (5.1 b), see Section 5.5.4, applicatives (5.1 c), see Section 5.9.2, and many more.
| (5.1) | a. | Ich schlürfe meinen Tee. Ich schlürfe an meinem Tee. |
| b. | Er quietscht mit den Reifen. Die Reifen quietschen. |
|
| c. | Er füllt Schnaps in die Flasche. Er füllt die Flasche mit Schnaps. |
[5.2] There are also various alternations that necessarily involve obligatory local prepositional phrases, like causatives (5.2 a), see Section 5.5.10, resultatives (5.2 b), see Section 5.8.4, and raised possessors (5.2 c) see Section 5.8.10.
| (5.2) | a. | Der Pullover hängt im Schrank. Ich hänge den Pullover in den Schrank. |
| b. | Der Wind weht. Der Wind weht die Blätter durch die Luft. |
|
| c. | Er schaut über meine Schulter. Er schaut mir über die Schulter. |
[5.3] Prepositional phrases in German are partly governed arguments and partly non-governed adverbial phrases. This distinction is not overtly marked and leads to recurrent ambiguity, e.g. between warten auf ‘to wait for something’ and warten auf ‘to wait while being on top of something’ (5.3). It is of central importance to clearly delimit governed from non-governed prepositions, as discussed extensively in Section 5.2).
| (5.3) | Der König wartet auf seinem alten Thron auf seinen neuen Thron. |
[5.4] There are fourteen local groups of diatheses that seem prominent enough to be given a German name. I propose the following names for these:
[5.5] As a general rule (with some exceptions with für and durch to be discussed below) I propose to identify prepositional phrases as lexically governed arguments when they allow for a paraphrase of the form da-preposition, dass/was sentence (cf. Engelen 1986: 110-112). For example, the verb warten ‘to await’ has a possible governed preposition auf designating the object that is waited for (5.4 a). In this reading, (5.4 a) can be paraphrased by (5.4 b) with a darauf, dass subordinate clause. The combination warten auf can best be considered a fixed collocation, to be translated into English as ‘waiting for’. However, the preposition auf can also have its adverbial local meaning ‘on top of’ (5.4 c). This leads to another interpretation in which the prepositional phrase is not a governed preposition but an adverbial phrase with a local meaning, paraphrased in (5.4 d). These two readings can even be combined (5.4 e), with an interesting difference in case marking between the two prepositional phrases.
| (5.4) | a. | Der König wartet auf seinen neuen Thron. |
| b. | Der König wartet darauf, dass sein neuer Thron kommt. | |
| c. | Der König wartet auf seinem alten Thron. | |
| d. | Der König wartet, während er auf seinem alten Thron sitzt. | |
| e. | Der König wartet auf seinem alten Thron auf seinen neuen Thron. |
[5.6] The possibility of a da+Preposition, dass construction has a parallel in question constructions with wo(r)+Preposition (5.5 a). The local interpretation is questioned with a bare question word wo (5.5 b)
| (5.5) | a. | Worauf wartet der König? |
| b. | Wo wartet der König? |
[5.7] Some prepositional phrases without the da+PREPOSITION, dass paraphrase still have a special status as an argument-like role of a verb, namely when they can be substituted by a case-marked constituent. This is typical for antipassive alternations like (5.6 a), in which the accusative role den Bären can alternatively be expressed by a prepositional phrase auf den Bären with a difference in affectedness of the object, see Section 5.7.6. Note that in this situation the prepositional phrase cannot be replaced by a darauf, dass phrase. Not all prepositional phrases allow such an alternation, notably most local expressions do not (5.6 b). However, there are also some distinctly local expressions that allow for an antipassive alternation (5.6 c).
| (5.6) | a. | Ich schieße auf den Bären. Ich schieße den Bären. |
| b. | Ich sitze auf dem Stuhl. ^* Ich sitze den Stuhl. | |
| c. | Ich reite auf dem Pferd. Ich reite das Pferd. |
[5.8] A different criterion to distinguish between the syntactical status of prepositional phrases is proposed by Schäfer (2018: 445-446).
[5.9] Non-governed prepositional phrases are typically adverbial phrases, describing either a local (5.7 a), temporal (5.7 b), manner (5.7 c) or purpose/causal (5.7 d) situation. In some situations, such adverbial prepositional phrases do not allow for determiners after the preposition, like in gegen Abend, aus Gold, or mit größter Sorgfalt.
| (5.7) | a. | Ich arbeite in dem Arbeitszimmer. |
| b. | Ich arbeite vor dem Frühstück. | |
| c. | Ich arbeite aus Leidenschaft. | |
| d. | Ich arbeite wegen des Regens. |
[5.10] Adverbial prepositional phrases can easily be identified by considering how this information can be questioned and by which proforms or adverbs the information can be replaced. However, there are various special considerations to be discussed in the following section.
[5.11] As a general rule, locational prepositional phrases are not governed by a verb. However, there are a few verbs that obligatory need a local preposition (5.8), see Sections 5.3.4-6.3.4.
| (5.8) | a. | Er steckt den Zettel in die Tasche. | |
| b. | * | Er steckt den Zettel. | |
| c. | Ich befinde mich in dem Haus. | ||
| d. | * | Ich befinde mich. |
[5.12] Less common are verbs that obligatory need a local preposition (5.9 a,b), but which is alternatively exchanged for a temporal one (5.9 c).
| (5.9) | a. | Der Unfall ereignete sich an der Kreuzung. | |
| b. | * | Der Unfall ereignete sich. | |
| c. | Der Unfall ereignete sich vor Sonnenuntergang. |
[5.13] Some locations become obligatory through diatheses, for example with datives that are introduced by raising possessors (5.10), see Section 5.8.10, or dynamic ‘manner of movement’ prepositional phrases (5.11), see Section 5.8.2.
| (5.10) | a. | Der Ball fällt (auf dem Boden). | |
| b. | Der Ball fällt dem Spieler vor die Füße. | ||
| c. | * | Der Ball fällt dem Spieler. |
| (5.11) | a. | Ich habe (in dem Garten) getanzt. | |
| b. | Ich bin durch den Garten getanzt. | ||
| c. | * | ich bin getanzt. |
[5.14] The prepositions mit ‘with’ (and its negative counterpart ohne ‘without’) have a special status in German. With human participants they have a comitative interpretation (5.12), questioned with mit wem, while with non-human participants an instrumental reading is provoked (5.13), questioned with womit. Except for the different interrogative, The comitative interpretation can also be identified by the possibility to add zusammen, which is not possible with the instrumental reading.
| (5.12) | a. | Ich arbeite mit meinem Freund. |
| b. | Mit wem arbeitest du? | |
| c. | Ich arbeite zusammen mit meinem Freund. |
| (5.13) | a. | Ich arbeite mit einem Hammer | |
| b. | Womit arbeitest du? | ||
| c. | * | Ich arbeite zusammen mit einem Hammer |
[5.15] Both of these reading are non-governed prepositional phrases because the damit, dass periphrasis is not possible (5.14). Another characteristic of such non-governed mit is that it can be replaced by the negative ohne, of course with a negated meaning (5.15).
| (5.14) | a. | * | Ich arbeite damit, dass er hilft. |
| b. | * | Ich arbeite damit, dass es funktioniert. |
| (5.15) | a. | Ich arbeite ohne meinen Freund. |
| b. | Ich arbeite ohne einen Hammer. |
[5.16] The non-governed comitative and instrumental interpretation of mit can be added to practically every verb, given a sensible context. In those contexts, the comitative and instrumental roles are not lexical roles, in the sense that they describe a role that is not specific for the main verb of the sentence.
[5.17] However, there are also many verbs that allow for a mit prepositional phrase that expresses a lexical-specific role. This occurs in the following situations (with some verbs allowing for multiple options):
| (5.16) | a. | Ich kämpfe mit der Krankheit. Ich kämpfe damit, dass ich krank bin. |
| b. | Du überraschst mich mit dem Geschenk. Das Geschenk überrascht mich. | |
| c. | Er füllt die Flasche mit Schnaps. Er füllt den Schnaps in die Flasche. | |
| d. | Ich einige mich mit dir. Wir einigen uns miteinander. |
[5.18] The preposition für has a beneficiary reading with human participants and a general purpose interpretation with non-human participants. Beneficiary für often appears in alternation with a dative (5.17 a,b), see Section 5.7.9. However, a beneficiary für is also possible with many more verbs as an adverbial phrase without such an alternation being possible (5.17 c,d).
| (5.17) | a. | Ich kaufe dir ein Buch. | |
| b. | Ich kaufe ein Buch für dich. | ||
| c. | Ich arbeite für dich | ||
| d. | * | Ich arbeite dir |
[5.19] Adverbial purposive für can be used with almost all verbs and can be identified by being paraphrased by um zu INFINITIVE phrase (5.18 a,b). In this usage, it is also possible to use the paraphrase dafür, dass (5.18 c). This is an obvious counterexample to the claim that this paraphrase identifies governed prepositions.
| (5.18) | a. | Ich arbeite für ein besseres Leben. |
| b. | Ich arbeite um ein besseres Leben zu haben. | |
| c. | Ich arbeite dafür, dass ich ein besseres Leben habe. |
[5.20] The preposition durch, roughly meaning ‘through’ in its spatial meaning (5.19 a), has a widespread adverbial usage describing a cause (5.19 b). In this non-governed adverbial usage it is possible to use the paraphrase dadurch, dass (5.19 c). Together with purposive für from the previous section, this is a second exception to the claim that this da- paraphrase is an indication of governed usage.
| (5.19) | a. | Ich laufe durch den Regen. |
| b. | Ich verspäte mich durch den Regen. | |
| c. | Ich verspäte mich dadurch, dass es regnet. |
[5.21] The preposition von, roughly meaning ‘from’ in its spatial meaning (5.20 a), can also be used for a cause (5.20 b).
| (5.20) | a. | Sie kommt von dem Arzt. |
| b. | Sie erwachte von dem Regen. | |
| c. | Sie erwachte davon, dass es regnete. |
[5.22] This causal durch and von are also found in passives (5.21 a) as a way to express the demoted agent. Actually, this usage of durch in passives can be seen as a regular causal usage (5.21 b), and should probably not be seen as part of the passive construction.
| (5.21) | a. | Das Haus wird gebaut durch mich. |
| b. | Das Haus wird dadurch gebaut, dass ich einen Stein auf den anderen lege. |
[5.23] Prepositional phrases can of course also be used adnominally, i.e. they specify another noun phrase. In such situations they are of course not governed by the verb. In some cases there is even potential ambiguity between a governed and an adnominal prepositional phrase (5.22 a,b).
| (5.22) | a. | Gerade knabbert [der Hund] an der Leine. |
| b. | Gerade knabbert [der Hund an der Leine] an meinem Bein. |
[5.24] There are a few verbs that necessarily need a governed preposition. The number of such obligatory verb-preposition combinations is surprisingly small in German. Most governed prepositional phrases can easily be dropped or show other alternations (as discussed in the remainder of this chapter). Most verbs that obligatorily occur together with a preposition have developed a special meaning for the verb-preposition combination, like kommen auf ‘to conceive’ vs. kommen ‘to come’ (5.23 a,b) and brechen mit ‘to cease relations’ vs. brechen ‘to break’ (5.23 c,d)
| (5.23) | a. | Ich komme nicht auf die Lösung. |
| b. | Ich komme gleich nach Hause. | |
| c. | Ich breche mit meiner Vergangenheit. | |
| d. | Ich breche den Spiegel. |
[5.25] Only very few verbs seem to have an obligatory preposition and no other meaning without the preposition, like appellieren ‘to appeal’ (5.24 a,b) and gewöhnen ‘to accustom’ (5.24 c,d).
| (5.24) | a. | Er appelliert an dein Gewissen. | |
| b. | * | Er appelliert. | |
| c. | Er gewöhnt seinen Sohn an den Geschmack. | ||
| d. | * | Er gewöhnt seinen Sohn. |
[5.26] Attested Verbs
[5.27] Examples
[5.28] Notes
[5.29] For the verb geraten the prepositions in accounts for most collocations. However, many other prepositions also occur with the verb (5.25 a,b). Without any preposition it seems to be rather unusual (5.25 c).
| (5.25) | a. | Die Kinder geraten nach ihrem Vater. |
| b. | Die SPD gerät unter Zugzwang. | |
| c. | Der Kuchen ist mir gut geraten. |
[5.30] Attested Verbs
[5.31] Examples
[5.32] Some verbs appear to have an obligatory locational argument, like wohnen ‘to live’ (5.26). This seems to be widespread with verbs of living.
| (5.26) | a. | Sie wohnt in Berlin. | |
| b. | * | Sie wohnt. |
[5.33] Attested Verbs
[5.34] Examples
[5.35] The most obvious verbs in this class are historical ablaut causatives like legen ‘to lay, to put down’ (5.27 b) of posture verbs like liegen ‘to lie’ (5.27 a). More examples are attested with obligatory reflexive pronoun, see Section 6.3.4.
| (5.27) | a. | Der Hund liegt im Korb. |
| b. | Er legt den Hund in den Korb. |
[5.36] Attested Verbs
[5.37] Examples
[5.38] The verbs absehen, anlegen and belassen appear to have an obligatorily empty accusative pronoun es. Such non-phoric es mostly appears as a fall-back mechanism for missing subjects. However, with these verbs it is used for a missing object. Also, note that it does not seem to be possible to use any phoric object with these verbs.
[5.39] Attested Verbs
[5.40] Examples
[5.41] A few verbs have a special reciprocal role marked with the preposition mit, e.g. kooperieren ‘to cooperate’ (5.28 a). This role can be identified by the alternative formulation with a plural subject and the reciprocal marker miteinander (5.28 b). It is possible to add an additional comitative prepositional phrase zusammen mit, but not as an alternative for the reciprocal role.
| (5.28) | a. | Karl kooperiert mit Anna. |
| b. | Karl und Anna kooperieren miteinander. | |
| c. | Karl kooperiert mit Anna [zusammen mit seinem Freund]. |
[5.42] Attested Verbs
[5.43] Examples
[5.44] Alternations without diathesis do not exist by definition for ‘bare’ alternations as discussed in this chapter. This chapter discusses alternations that are only recognisable by the fact that there is a diathesis, without any other linguistic indication of the valency alternation. In other chapters this category will be well represented.
[5.45] With verbs like abhängen the nominative can be dropped, and a valency-simulating pronoun es is inserted (5.29 a,b). This pronoun es is not referential with verbs like this. For an apparently similar verb like zeugen this is different (5.29 c,d): with this verb the pronoun es can only be interpreted referentially (‘phoric’).
| (5.29) | a. | Mein Leben hängt von dir ab. |
| b. | Jetzt hängt es ganz von dir ab. | |
| c. | Das Resultat zeugt von deinem Einsatz. | |
| d. | Es zeugt von deinem Einsatz. |
[5.46] Attested Verbs
[5.47] Examples
[5.48] Notes
[5.49] Some dictionaries list hapern ‘to be lacking’ as having obligatory es (5.30 a). However, in corpora there are various examples with a nominative subject (5.30 b,c).
| (5.30) | a. | Es hapert an der Versorgung. |
| b. | Denn der Vergleich hapert immer.21 | |
| c. | Eine mögliche Wiedergeburt der Grünen […] hapert an drei Stellen.22 | |
| d. | Nur bei den Bässen hapert der Nachschub.23 |
[5.50] Incidental verbs with nominative and dative arguments allow the nominative to be changed into a prepositional phrase with an, while at the same time the dative will be retained (5.31 a,b). The result is a construction without nominative, so a pronoun es is inserted.
| (5.31) | a. | Das Geld fehlt ihm. |
| b. | Ihm fehlt es an Geld. |
[5.51] Attested Verbs
[5.52] Examples
[5.53] Some predicates take a nominative argument with non-sentient arguments (5.32 a), but a dative experiencer can only be used with the nominative demoted (5.32 b). This only seems to occur with predicative constructions with copula sein. Maybe this diathesis is better analysed as a stack of two separate changes: a dropping of the nominative and an addition of the dative with (5.32 c) being an intermediate construction.
| (5.32) | a. | Der Sommer ist kalt. |
| b. | Mir ist kalt (im Sommer). | |
| c. | Es ist kalt (im Sommer). |
[5.54] Attested Verbs
[5.55] Examples
[5.56] A conciliative is a diathesis in which an instrument-like artefact is promoted to nominative subject. This instrument is an intermediate (Lat. conciliator, ‘intermediary/mediator’) that is used by an agent to reach a certain goal. For intransitive verbs a (non-governed) prepositional constituent alternates with a nominative subject (5.33 a,b).
| (5.33) | a. | Er klappert mit der Tür. |
| b. | Die Tür klappert. |
[5.57] With some verbs the old nominative can be retained as genitive possessor of the new nominative (5.34 b). Because of this possessor, the alternation is referred to by Levin (1993: 77) as “Possessor Subject”. However, the old nominative and genitive possessor need not be the same participant (5.34 c), so this should not be seen as a definitional characteristic. The possessor (if present) in turn can show an alternation with a dative for some verbs (5.34 d), see Section 4.8.3.
| (5.34) | a. | Ich passe in den Anzug. |
| b. | Mein Anzug passt. | |
| c. | Ich passe in deinen Anzug. | |
| d. | Mir passt der Anzug. |
[5.58] Attested Verbs
[5.59] Examples
[5.60] This diathesis removes the agent and promotes the mit instrument to a nominative (5.35 a,b). The accusative argument remains unchanged. With some verbs the original nominative can be retained as possessor of the new nominative. However, just like with the previous alternation, this characteristic is not definitional for this diathesis.
| (5.35) | a. | Der Doktor heilt die Wunde mit einer Salbe. |
| b. | Die Salbe des Doktors heilt die Wunde. |
[5.61] The instrumental mit phrase is a real non-governed instrument, i.e. an inanimate artefact that is used by the agent to achieve a certain goal. A further structural argument for the status as instrument is that the preposition mit can be replaced by ohne. This defines the differentiation between this diathesis and a fabricative (see Section 5.5.7). In a fabricative, the mit phrase (i) is a governed preposition, i.e. it can be replaced by a sentence starting with damit, dass, (ii) designates something that the agent has fabricated, and (iii) cannot be replaced by ohne.
[5.62] Attested Verbs
[5.63] Examples
[5.64] Notes
[5.65] Not all instruments allow for this diathesis (5.36).
| (5.36) | a. | Ich belade den Laster mit einem Kran. | |
| b. | Der Kran belädt den Laster. | ||
| c. | Ich belade den Laster mit meinen Händen. | ||
| d. | * | Meine Hände beladen den Laster. |
[5.66] This alternation takes a (non-governed) prepositional phrase and turns it into a nominative. However, different from the previous anticausatives, the original nominative agent cannot be retained, and the original accusative is transformed into a prepositional phrase with nach.
[5.67] Attested Verbs
[5.68] Examples
[5.69] A fabricative (Lat fabrica, ‘plan, trick, workmanship’) is a diathesis that superficially looks very similar to a conciliative in German because in both diatheses a mit prepositional phrase is promoted to nominative subject. The central difference is that the mit prepositional phrase in a fabricative diathesis is a governed preposition. This structural difference has a parallel semantic difference in that the fabricative mit phrase is an object that is produced by the agent.
[5.70] This diathesis occurs (among others) with verbs of emotional interactions like überraschen ‘to surprise’ (5.37 a). To understand this diathesis, a distinction is needed between the role of the ‘fabricator’, who produces the source (here: Lehrer, ‘teacher’) and the role of the ‘fabricated product’, which induces the emotion (here: Aufgabe, ‘assignment’). The fabricator can be expressed with an adnominal genitive (‘possessor’) of the product (5.37 a,b). The mit prepositional phrase expressing the fabricated product in (5.37 a) is a governed preposition (5.37 c). As a result of the diathesis, the fabricated product is be promoted to nominative subject and the fabricator is removed from the expression (5.37 a,b). The experiencer in the accusative remains unchanged.
| (5.37) | a. | Der Lehrer überraschst mich mit seiner Aufgabe. |
| b. | Die Aufgabe (des Lehrers) überrascht mich. | |
| c. | Der Lehrer überrascht mich damit, dass er die Aufgabe schon korrigiert hat. |
[5.71] There is a large overlap (but also an interesting difference) between the verbs that allow for this diathesis and the verbs that allow for a reflexive variant (5.38 c), see Section 6.5.8. Some verbs, like ärgern ‘to irritate’ in (5.38) allow for both diatheses, but other verbs only take part in one or the other.
| (5.38) | a. | Du ärgerst mich mit deinen Witzen. |
| b. | Deine Witze ärgern mich. | |
| c. | Ich ärgere mich über deine Witze. |
[5.72] Attested Verbs
[5.73] Examples
[5.74] Notes
[5.75] For a detailed discussion of the verb erschrecken and possible morphophonolical differences between the two alternants, see Plank & Lahiri (Plank & Lahiri 2015: 29-31).
| (5.39) | a. | Ich dränge auf eine Änderung. |
| b. | Ich dränge darauf, dass die Regelung geändert wird. | |
| c. | Die Änderung drängt. |
[5.76] Attested Verbs
| (5.40) | a. | Er droht mir mit Entlassung. |
| b. | Er droht mir damit, dass ich entlassen werde. | |
| c. | Die Entlassung droht mir. |
[5.77] Attested Verbs
[5.78] Some verbs allow for both an intransitive stative location (5.41 a) and caused location (5.41 b) construction. I analyse these verbs as anticausatives (cf. Section 4.5.5).
| (5.41) | a. | Ich hänge den Pullover in den Schrank. |
| b. | Der Pullover hängt im Schrank. |
[5.79] These verbs use a haben perfect both in the intransitive and transitive usage (5.42 a,b). The “Zustandspassiv” of the transitive is sometimes also possible, leading to another intransitive construction with the auxiliary sein (5.42 c).
| (5.42) | a. | Ich habe den Teller an den Tisch geklebt. |
| b. | Der Teller hat am Tisch geklebt. | |
| c. | Der Teller ist am Tisch geklebt. |
[5.80] Attested Verbs
[5.81] Examples
[5.82] Notes
[5.83] The verb hängen still shows the difference between transitive causative and intransitive stative usage through different forms of the past hing vs. hängte (5.43 a,b) and the participle gehangen vs. gehängt (5.43 c,d). Many speakers of German do not appear to have clear intuitions about any difference between these two inflectional alternatives anymore (see also Plank & Lahiri 2015: 32-33).
| (5.43) | a. | Der Pullover hing im Schrank. |
| b. | Ich hängte den Pullover in den Schrank. | |
| c. | Der Pullover hat im Schrank gehangen. | |
| d. | Ich habe den Pullover in den Schrank gehängt. |
[5.84] The preposition auf is a governed preposition (5.44).
| (5.44) | a. | Ich deute den Traum. |
| b. | Der Traum deutet auf nichts Gutes. | |
| c. | Der Traum deutet darauf, dass morgen alles wieder gut sein wird. |
[5.85] Attested Verbs
[5.86] Though similar to the haben causatives (see Section 5.5.10), these verbs only have the option of a sein perfect for the intransitive (5.45 a,b).
| (5.45) | a. | Der Elefant ist ins Wasser gestürzt. | |
| b. | * | Der Elefant hat ins Wasser gestürzt. | |
| c. | Ich habe den Elefanten ins Wasser gestürzt. |
[5.87] This alternation is strongly reminiscent of the Zustandspassiv (see Section 9.5.15), but there is a crucial difference in that with stürzen both the transitive (5.46 a,b) and the intransitive (5.46 c,d) can occur in the present tense. This is crucially different from regular transitive verbs like öffnen (5.47) for which the intransitive present is not possible (5.47 d).
| (5.46) | a. | Ich habe den Elefanten ins Wasser gestürzt. |
| b. | Ich stürze den Elefanten ins Wasser. | |
| c. | Der Elefant ist ins Wasser gestürzt. | |
| d. | Der Elefant stürzt ins Wasser. |
| (5.47) | a. | Ich habe den Brief geöffnet. | |
| b. | Ich öffne den Brief. | ||
| c. | Der Brief ist geöffnet. | ||
| d. | * | Der Brief öffnet. |
[5.88] Attested Verbs
[5.89] Examples
[5.90] Notes
[5.91] The alternation with the verb rücken ‘to move over’ and ziehen ‘to pull’ are rather idiosyncratic. Possibly, these alternations constructions are better seen as different verbs.
| (5.48) | Der Hund liegt in den Korb. Ich lege den Hund in den Korb. |
[5.92] Attested Verbs
[5.93] Examples
[5.94] There are two different kinds of object demotions that involve prepositional phrases. First, there are many verbs with governed prepositions (5.49 a,b) that allow for the governed prepositional phrase to be dropped (5.49 c).
| (5.49) | a. | Ich träume von dir. |
| b. | Ich träume davon, dass ich dich treffe. | |
| c. | Ich träume. |
[5.95] Second, there are prepositional antipassives in which a case-marked argument alternates with a prepositional phrase (5.50 a,b). Note that with antipassives this prepositional phrase cannot be reformulated with a da+preposition, dass phrase (5.50 c).
| (5.50) | a. | Ich schieße den Bären. | |
| b. | Ich schieße auf den Bären. | ||
| c. | * | Ich schieße darauf, dass der Bär kommt. |
[5.96] There are just a few ‘drop’-alternations that are missing, and these missing alternations suggest an interesting generalisation. Missing are the alternations [ NAP | N-P ], [ NPD | N-D ] and (from the previous chapter) [ NAD | N-D ]. These apparently dispreferred alternations suggest that a dative argument has to be dropped before a governed preposition can be dropped, and likewise, a governed preposition has to be dropped before an accusative argument can be dropped, i.e there is a dropping-hierarchy (5.51 a).
| (5.51) | Drop hierarchy: dative > preposition > accusative |
[5.97] A similar generalisation can be made for antipassives. If a verb has various case marked objects, then dative and genitive objects can have an antipassive alternation. In contrast, an accusative can only have antipassive alternation when there are no genitive or dative arguments. Note that the drop hierarchy and the antipassive hierarchy are not contradictory, but there is currently insufficient evidence to claim that they are the same hierarchy.
| (5.52) | Antipassive hierarchy: dative/genitive > accusative |
[5.98] Some verbs allow for both a dative and an accusative antipassive. There appears to be recurrent restrictions on the co-occurrence of accusative and dative prepositional alternations, with attested patterns as shown for schießen ‘to shoot’ in (5.53 a-f) and schreiben ‘to write’ (5.53 a-f). The generalisation seem to be (i) that the accusative cannot be demoted into a preposition when there is still a dative around and (ii) dative and accusative can only be both demoted to a preposition if one of the prepositions is für (this is a further indication that the für diatheses are better analysed as promotions, see Section 5.8.9).
| (5.53) | a. | Ich schieße dir den Bären. [ NAD] | |
| b. | Ich schieße für dich. [ N-P] | ||
| c. | Ich schieße auf den Bären. [ NP- ] | ||
| d. | Ich schieße den Bären für dich. [ NAP] | ||
| e. | * | Ich schieße dir auf den Bären. [ NPD] | |
| f. | Ich schieße für dich auf den Bären. [ NPP] |
| (5.54) | a. | Ich schreibe dir den Brief. [ NAD] | |
| b. | Ich schreibe an dich. [ N-P] | ||
| c. | Ich schreibe an den Brief. [ NP- ] | ||
| d. | Ich schreibe den Brief an dich. [ NAP] | ||
| e. | * | Ich schreibe dir an dem Brief. [ NPD] | |
| f. | * | Ich schreibe an dich an dem Brief. [ NPP] |
[5.99] Governed prepositions that can be dropped are frequent. There are even various verbs that allow for different governed prepositions (5.55 a,b).
| (5.55) | a. | Die Leute sprechen über die Wahl. Die Leute sprechen darüber, dass es einen neuen Präsidenten gibt. |
| b. | Der Reporter spricht von einem historischen Ereignis. Der Reporter spricht davon, dass es ein historisches Ereignis ist. |
[5.100] Attested Verbs
[5.101] Examples
[5.102] Some verbs allow for the governed preposition to be dropped, but not the accusative argument (6.25 a-c).
| (5.56) | a. | Ich bereite dich auf die Klausur vor. | |
| b. | Ich bereite dich vor. | ||
| c. | * | Ich bereite auf die Klausur vor. |
[5.103] Attested Verbs
[5.104] Examples
[5.105] Different from the previous alternation, these verbs allow for both the preposition and the accusative to be dropped (5.57 a-c).
| (5.57) | a. | Ich warne dich vor den Gefahren. |
| b. | Ich warne dich. | |
| c. | Ich warne vor den Gefahren. |
[5.106] Attested Verbs
[5.107] Examples
[5.108] With a dative argument, some verbs allow for the dative to be dropped, but the preposition to be retained (5.58 a-c). This is the opposite structure as attested with accusative drop, as discussed above.
| (5.58) | a. | Ich rate dir zum Verkauf. | |
| b. | * | Ich rate dir. | |
| c. | Ich rate zum Verkauf. |
[5.109] Attested Verbs
[5.110] ** Examples**
[5.111] Some verbs allow for both the dative and the preposition to be dropped, though mostly not both at the same time (5.59). Also note that the dative appears to be always the possessor of the prepositional phrase, so these diatheses might alternatively be analysed as a stack of two different diatheses, viz. a possessor raising [ NP–|NPg|NPD ] and a preposition drop [ NPD|N–D ].
| (5.59) | a. | Ich gratuliere dir zu deinem Geburtstag. | |
| b. | Ich gratuliere dir. | ||
| c. | Ich gratuliere zu deinem Geburtstag. | ||
| d. | ? | Ich gratuliere. |
[5.112] Attested Verbs
[5.113] Examples
[5.114] A commonly occurring alternation is that an accusative object can be reformulated as a prepositional phrase. In such alternations, the construction with the prepositional phrase typically indicates a less transitive situation, e.g. the object is less affected (5.60 a) or the action only partially completed (5.60 b). Note that this alternation does not work in the other direction, i.e. when a verb occurs with a prepositional phrase, then it is mostly not the case that it can be used with the same object as an accusative (5.60 c).
| (5.60) | a. | Ich schieße den Bären. Ich schieße auf den Bären. |
| b. | Ich baue ein Haus. Ich baue an einem Haus. | |
| c. | Ich sitze auf den Stuhl. ^* Ich sitze den Stuhl. |
[5.115] There appear to be only a small selection of prepositions that can be used in such alternations, which will be discussed in turn in subsequent subsections.
[5.116] It is important to realise that many verbs allow for more than one of these alternations, depending on the reading of the verb/object combination (5.61 a,b). With the same verb, there might even be combinations that do not allow for any prepositional alternation (5.61 c-e).
| (5.61) | a. | Er spielt die Geige. Er spielt auf der Geige |
| b. | Er spielt den letzen Akt. Er spielt in dem letzen Akt. | |
| c. | Er spielt Billard. | |
| d. | Er spielt einen Walzer. | |
| e. | Er spielt den Narren. |
[5.117] Some verbs additionally take a reflexive pronoun with an antipassive alternation (see Section 6.7.5). It is an open question, why some verbs need such an additional reflexive pronoun.
[5.118] Accusative objects that alternate with an an prepositional phrase indicate partially completed actions (5.62 a) and is also typically used when there is bodily contact to the object (5.62 b).
| (5.62) | a. | Ich baue ein Haus. Ich baue an einem Haus. |
| b. | Ich schlecke mein Eis. Ich schlecke an meinem Eis. |
[5.119] Attested Verbs
[5.120] Examples
[5.121] Notes
[5.122] For the verb verdienen ‘to earn’ it is unclear whether these two uses should be categorised as different meanings (5.63 a,b).
| (5.63) | a. | Er verdient den Nobelpreis. |
| b. | Er verdient an dem Geschäft |
[5.123] Note the absence of a determiner in the following cases:
[5.124] Accusative objects that alternate with an auf prepositional phrase indicate partially affected objects, either with actions on top of an object (5.64 a) or with a finished action in the direction of an object (5.64 b). Also the playing of musical instruments (5.64 c) show this alternation.
| (5.64) | a. | Er reitet das Pferd. Er reitet auf dem Pferd. |
| b. | Ich schieße den Bären. Ich schieße auf den Bären. | |
| c. | Ich blase die Trompete. Ich blase auf der Trompete. |
[5.125] Attested Verbs
[5.126] Examples
[5.127] Notes
[5.128] The verbs hören (5.65 a,b) and achten (5.65 c,d) show considerable semantic shift in this alternation.
| (5.65) | a. | Ich habe sie gehört. |
| b. | Ich habe auf sie gehört. | |
| c. | Ich achte dich. | |
| d. | Ich achte auf dich. |
[5.129] This alternation seems to be typical for objects of reading.
[5.130] Attested Verbs
[5.131] Examples
[5.132] Accusative objects that alternate with an in prepositional phrase seem to be rather uncommon. It only occurs when the action includes an aspect of occurring inside of an object. The prepositional alternate indicates partial completion of the action, very similarly to the an Antipassive.
[5.133] Attested Verbs
[5.134] Examples
[5.135] Accusative objects that alternate with a mit prepositional phrase indicate partially affected objects, typically those that can be construed as an instrument (5.66 a) or an instrument of transport (5.66 b).
| (5.66) | a. | Ich schieße eine Kugel. Ich schieße mit einer Kugel. |
| b. | Ich fliege das Flugzeug. Ich fliege mit dem Flugzeug. |
[5.136] Attested Verbs
[5.137] Examples
[5.138] A very small group of verbs show an antipassive in which the mit prepositional phrase is a reciprocal role. This role can be identified by the possibility to add miteinander (cf. Section 5.3.6 for verbs with a similar role, but without the antipassive alternation).
| (5.67) | a. | Ich heirate meinen Freund. |
| b. | Ich heirate mit meinem Freund. | |
| c. | Ich und mein Freund heiraten miteinander. |
[5.139] Attested Verbs
[5.140] Examples
[5.141] Accusative objects that alternate with a nach prepositional phrase indicate an uncompleted action in the direction of an object (cf. Proost 2009).
[5.142] Attested Verbs
[5.143] Examples
[5.144] Accusative objects that alternate with an von prepositional phrase occur typically with consumption verbs, indicating that the consumption is only partially completed (5.68 a). Also actions that designate a transaction of an object that can be a part of something (5.68 b). In some contexts the verbs wissen ‘to know’ (5.68 c) and hören ‘to hear’ (5.68 d) also show this alternation.
| (5.68) | a. | Ich esse einen Apfel. Ich esse von dem Apfel. |
| b. | Ich stehle die Blumen. Ich stehle von den Blumen. | |
| c. | Ich weiß deine Telefonnummer. Ich weiß von dem Schmuck. | |
| d. | Ich höre den Kampf in der Ferne. Ich höre von dem Kampf. |
[5.145] Attested Verbs
[5.146] Examples
[5.147] Attested Verbs
[5.148] Examples
[5.149] Attested Verbs
[5.150] Examples
[5.151] With some verbs, like drücken ‘to press’ (5.69) a locative prepositional phrase is obligatorily present. A similar situation occurs with stoßen ‘to jab’ (5.70).
| (5.69) | a. | Er drückt auf den Knopf (mit einem Finger). | |
| b. | Er drückt den Finger auf den Knopf. | ||
| c. | * | Er drückt den Finger. |
| (5.70) | a. | Er stößt in die Wunde (mit dem Messer). | |
| b. | Er stößt das Messer in die Wunde. | ||
| c. | * | Er stößt das Messer. |
[5.152] Attested Verbs
[5.153] It seems to be somewhat unusual for verbs with dative – but no accusative – to allow for a prepositional expression of the dative. There are just a handful of cases with the following prepositions. The meaning of these prepositional phrases seem to be very close to the locational meaning (e.g. aus is used for arguments moving out of something, etc.).
[5.154] Attested Verbs
[5.155] Examples
[5.156] Notes
[5.157] This seems to be very widespread with zu phrases in the interpretation für den Geschmack von Dative (cf. dativus iudicantis, Hole 2014: 6-7)).
[5.158] With an additional accusative argument it is widespread for dative arguments to have an alternative expression in the form of a prepositional phrase. However, it is much more difficult to characterise the difference between two such alternative expressions (cf. (De Vaere, De Cuypere & Willems 2018) for an investigation for the verb geben and the large literature on the English dative alternation). There are only a few monosyllabic prepositions that can be used for this alternation.
[5.159] The replacement of a dative with an an prepositional phrase is a common alternation (cf. Adler 2011). For a detailed analysis of this alternation with the verb geben, see De Vaere et al. (2018) In all cases there is some kind of giving of the accusative object to the dative object implied.
[5.160] Attested Verbs
[5.161] Examples
[5.162] Notes
[5.163] Various verbs also allow for a zu dative alternation.
[5.164] Attested Verbs
[5.165] Examples
[5.166] Attested Verbs
[5.167] Examples
[5.168] Attested Verbs
[5.169] Examples
| (5.71) | a. | Ich beginne die Arbeit. |
| b. | Ich beginne mit der Arbeit. | |
| c. | Ich beginne damit, dass ich die Stifte ordne. | |
| d. | Die Arbeit beginnt. |
[5.170] Attested Verbs
[5.171] Examples
[5.172] Notes
[5.173] Note the absence of a determiner with leiden:
| (5.72) | a. | Ich leide große Schmerzen. |
| b. | Ich leide an einer Krankheit. |
[5.174] Attested Verbs
[5.175] Examples
[5.176] Some old-fashioned genitive arguments can be replaced by a governed preposition. Yet, this seems to be highly unusual for genitives without accusatives (5.73 a,b). Note that the prepositional phrase is governed (5.73 c).
| (5.73) | a. | Ich denke der vergangenen Jahre. |
| b. | Ich denke an die vergangene Jahre. | |
| c. | Ich denke daran, dass ich Milch kaufen muss. |
[5.177] Attested Verbs
[5.178] The genitive ditransitive in this group allow for an alternative formulation of the genitive argument as a prepositional phrase with von and subsequent dative noun phrase. Given a suitable context, such prepositional phrases can in most cases be left out.
[5.179] As with many genitives in German, some verbs are losing the possibility to occur with a genitive, leaving other alternants as the only option. For example, the verb erinnern ‘remind’ could be used with a genitive until ±1850 (5.74 a). Today, the preposition seems to be only possibility (5.74 b). Note that the prepositions with these verbs are governed prepositions (5.74 c).
| (5.74) | a. | Ich erinnere dich des Versprechens. |
| b. | Ich erinnere dich an das Versprechen. | |
| c. | Ich erinnere dich daran, dass du Milch kaufen sollst. |
[5.180] Attested Verbs
[5.181] Examples
[5.182] Notes
[5.183] The verb entbinden can be used as an intransitive verb with a meaning of ‘to give birth’. In the meaning as discussed here it seems not to be possible to completely drop the genitive or von phrase. This also seems to hold for entheben and verweisen. The usage of befreien with a Genitive seems to be lost in the 19th Century.
[5.184] This alternation allows for either a dative to be present or not with verbs that have no nominative argument. Consequently, a valency-simulating pronoun es is present.
[5.185] Attested Verbs
[5.186] Examples
[5.187] Some movement verbs allow for the following two kinds of constructions. First a regular intransitive construction expressing the movement (5.75 a) and, second, a construction with a local prepositional phrase in which the movement verb expresses the manner of movement (5.75 b). Syntactically, there is a crucial difference between these two constructions in that the Perfekt auxiliary changes between haben (5.75 a) and sein (5.75 b). In the Perfekt construction with sein the local prepositional phrase cannot be left out (5.75 c).
| (5.75) | a. | Ich habe (in dem Garten) getanzt. | |
| b. | Ich bin durch den Garten getanzt. (= Ich habe mich tanzend durch den Garten bewegt.) |
||
| c. | * | ich bin getanzt. |
[5.188] Attested Verbs
[5.189] Examples
[5.190] Many weather verbs like wehen ‘to blow’ (5.76) allow for a nominative subject that is moving in a weather-like manner, often induced by a weather phenomenon. In such constructions are location seems obligatory.
| (5.76) | a. | Es weht. |
| b. | Die Blätter wehen durch die Luft. |
[5.191] There appears to be a slight semantic difference between examples in which the nominative subject is a patient-like argument of the weather phenomenon, like in (5.76), and example in which an action is performed in a way reminiscent of the weather phenomenon, like in (5.77).
| (5.77) | a. | Es stürmt. |
| b. | Sie stürmten in den Saal. |
[5.192] Attested Verbs
[5.193] Examples
[5.194] In the analysis of resultative constructions, there is a recurrent suggestion in the literature to distinguish between ‘cause to go’ and ‘cause to become’ semantics (e.g. (McIntyre 2003: 120)). I will use the designation ‘location-as-result’ for the former and names like ‘action result’ or ‘performative result’ for the latter here.
[5.195] With some apparently intransitive verbs there exist special constructions with an accusative argument and an obligatorily present prepositional phrase. For example, the verb klopfen ‘to knock’ is regularly used as an intransitive (5.78 a) possibly with an an prepositional phrase (5.78 b). Accusative arguments are normally not possible, except for a very few special nouns related to music (5.78 c).
[5.196] However, the verb klopfen is very regularly used in construction like (5.78 d) with an accusative and a prepositional phrase. Both have to occur together, as leaving out either the prepositional phrase (5.78 e) or the Accusative (5.78 f) is not possible. This prepositional phrase is a locative and not a governed argument, because it cannot be replaced by a davon, dass … Phrase.
[5.197] The meaning of this special construction (5.78 d) is also special. The meaning is something like: by doing the action of the intransitive verb, nominative causes accusative to move in the direction described by the prepositional phrase (5.78 g), cf. Goldberg’s (2006: 73) famous example “She sneezed the foam off the cappuccino.”
[5.198] Note that with possessor raising (see Section 5.8.11) it is even possible to add an additional dative argument, leading to an ‘intransitive’ verb with an obligatory dative, accusative and prepositional argument (5.78 h). This dative can also be turned into a reflexive (5.78 i).
| (5.78) | a. | Das Herz klopft ganz regelmäßig. | |
| b. | Er klopft an der Tür. | ||
| c. | Er klopft den Takt. | ||
| d. | Er klopft den Schnee von seinen Schuhen. | ||
| e. | * | Er klopft den Schnee. | |
| f. | * | Er klopft von seinen Schuhen. | |
| g. | Durch klopfen sorgte er dafür, dass der Schnee von seinen Schuhen ging. | ||
| h. | Er klopft mir den Schnee von den (meinen) Schuhen. | ||
| i. | Er klopft sich den Schnee von den Schuhen. |
[5.199] This construction is closely related to adjectival resultative secondary predicates (see Section X) as in (5.79).
| (5.79) | Er klopft den Aschenbecher leer. |
[5.200] Attested Verbs
[5.201] Examples
[5.202] Notes
[5.203] This construction is also found in fixed (metaphorical) expressions.
| (5.80) | a. | Er trinkt seine Freunde unter den Tisch. |
| b. | Er spielt den Gegner an die Wand. | |
| c. | Ich schlafe ein Loch in den Tag. |
[5.204] Similar to intransitive resultatives (see Section 5.8.4), some transitive verbs (5.81 a) alternate with a location as result (5.81 b,c). There is a slightly different construction with a dative after the preposition an (5.81 d). In this example the prepositional phrase simply expresses the location in which the action is taking place (5.81 e), so there is no valency alternation.
| (5.81) | a. | Ich befehle eine Armee. |
| b. | Ich befehle die Armee an die Front. | |
| c. | Ich befehle, und das Resultat ist: die Armee ist an der Front. | |
| d. | Ich befehle die Armee an der Front. | |
| e. | Ich befehle die Armee, während ich an der Front bin. |
[5.205] Attested Verbs
[5.206] Examples
[5.207] A slightly different variant of a resultative constructions is found with various performative verbs that take a regular accusative (5.82 a). As an alternative structure, these verbs also allow a construction with an accusative and a preposition (5.82 b). The meaning of such constructions is parallel to the previous resultatives, in that the performative verb causes the result “accusative is prepositional object” (5.82 c). Such constructions were named quite aptly “Ergänzende Wirkung” all the way back in the influential educational grammatical work of Karl Ferdinand Becker (Becker 1833: 81) almost 200 years ago.
| (5.82) | a. | Er macht die Aufgaben. |
| b. | Er macht die Wiese zu einem Garten. | |
| c. | Er macht etwas, und das Ergebnis ist: Die Wiese ist ein Garten. |
[5.208] Maybe the als alternation has to treated as a separate diathesis.
[5.209] Attested Verbs
[5.210] Examples
[5.211] Notes
[5.212] For some verbs there appears to be a rather clear lexicalisation of the meaning of the verb between the two alternants, i.e. it is questionable, whether the alternant should still be considered to be the same verb.
[5.213] This alternation occurs with some transitive verbs like brechen ‘to break’ (5.83 a-g), cf. the wipe alternation in English from Levin (1993: 53). Note that the accusatives at both sides of the alternation do not refer to the same roles. The original accusative is recast as a location, and a new accusative is introduced as the result of the action.
| (5.83) | a. | Ich breche den Felsen. | |
| b. | Ich breche ein Loch in den Felsen. | ||
| c. | * | Ich breche ein Loch. | |
| d. | Durch das Brechen des Felsens sorge ich dafür, dass ein Loch darin entsteht. | ||
| e. | Ich breche ein Kristal aus dem Stein. | ||
| f. | * | Ich breche ein Kristal. | |
| g. | Durch das Brechen des Steins sorge ich dafür, dass ein Kristal heraus kommt. |
[5.214] These verbs also allow for a subsequent alternation (5.84 a,b), namely to raise a possessor from the prepositional phrase to a dative (see Section 5.8.11).
| (5.84) | a. | Er kämmt die Läuse aus deinen Haaren. |
| b. | Er kämmt dir die Läuse aus den Haaren. |
[5.215] Attested Verbs
[5.216] Examples
[5.217] This alternation appears as a parallel to the double accusative of nennen ‘to name’ (see Section 4.3.10) for other naming verbs.
| (5.85) | a. | Sie schimpft auf mich. |
| b. | Sie schimpft mich einen Narren |
[5.218] Attested Verbs
[5.219] Examples
[5.220] The alternation of a dative with a für prepositional phrase is very widespread (5.86 a,b). It can be used with verbs that can be performed on behalf of somebody else “nach deinem Wunsch” (benefactive/dativus commodi). In German grammar it is sometimes referred to as a ‘free dative’ because it can be easily dropped completely. As Eisenberg (2006a: 298) remarks, it is widespread, but cannot be used with all verbs and is thus a device for the subclassification of verbs.
| (5.86) | a. | Ich koche dir eine Suppe. |
| b. | Ich koche eine Suppe für dich. |
[5.221] Note that it almost always possible to add a für benefactive phrase to a sentence (5.87 a), but these do not always have a dative alternant (5.87 b). With transitive verbs it turns out not so easy to find good examples where this alternation is impossible, because with most verbs datives seem to be possible though often only with some creative freedom, e.g. (5.87 c-e). Only those verbs that clearly allow for both alternatives are of interest here.
| (5.87) | a. | Ich arbeite für den Chef. | |
| b. | * | Ich arbeite dem Chef. | |
| c. | Ich gewinne das Geld für dich. | ||
| d. | ? | Ich gewinne dir das Geld. | |
| e. | Gib mir eine Waffe und ich gewinne dir jeden Krieg.34 |
[5.222] Attested Verbs
[5.223] Examples
[5.224] An alternation for datives is that the dative can be expressed alternatively as a possessor inside a prepositional phrase. This happens with some verbs that can be used intransitively (5.88 a) or with a dative (5.88 b). However, this dative cannot be used without an additional prepositional phrase (5.88 c). In these cases, the dative can be alternatively expressed as the possessor of the prepositional object (5.88 d).
| (5.88) | a. | Der Affe saß ruhig. | |
| b. | Der Affe saß ihm auf der Schulter. | ||
| c. | * | Der Affe saß ihm ruhig. | |
| d. | Der Affe saß auf seiner Schulter. |
[5.225] Coreference (“reflexive double marking”) is possible between dative and possessor (5.89 a), but in the third person this does not lead to a reflexive sich (5.89 b,c). This is a clear indication that the dative and the possessor have to refer to the same participant. It is impossible for them to be not coreferent, so there is no possible confusion in the third person, so there is no need for a disambiguating reflexive pronoun.
| (5.89) | a. | Der Affe saß mir auf meiner Schulter. | |
| b. | Der Affe saß ihm auf seiner Schulter. | ||
| c. | * | Der Affe saß sich auf seine Schulter. |
[5.226] Attested Verbs
[5.227] Examples
[5.228] Notes
[5.229] The verb beißen ‘to bite’ can also be used transitively with an accusative argument (5.90 a-c), or with the dative alternation (5.90 d,e), leading to two different options to encode the object of the biting.
| (5.90) | a. | Der Hund hat ihn ins Bein gebissen. |
| b. | Der Hund hat ihn gebissen. | |
| c. | Der Hund hat sein Bein gebissen. | |
| d. | Der Hund hat in sein Bein gebissen. | |
| e. | Der Hund hat ihm ins Bein gebissen. |
[5.230] Similar to the previous alternation, the verbs in this group also alternate the possessor of the prepositional phrase with a dative. However, differently from the previous group, these verbs also have an accusative arguments. These verbs are either causative alternants of the verbs from the previous group or verbs that allow for a resultative alternation (see Section 5.8.4).
| (5.91) | a. | Ich lege den Brief auf deinen Schreibtisch. |
| b. | Ich lege dir den Brief auf den Schreibtisch. |
[5.231] Attested Verbs
[5.232] Examples
[5.233] Notes
[5.234] This construction is frequently used metaphorically (5.92).
| (5.92) | Er fragt mir ein Loch in den Bauch. |
[5.235] This alternation is the German equivalents of the “Possessor Object” alternation in English from Levin (1993: 73). The possessor of an accusative becomes an accusative, and the erstwhile accusative is demoted to a prepositional phrase. The preposition (typically für) appears to be a governed preposition.
| (5.93) | a. | Ich bewundere seine Ehrlichkeit. |
| b. | Ich bewundere ihn für/wegen seine Ehrlichkeit. | |
| c. | Ich bewundere ihn dafür, dass er ehrlich ist. |
[5.236] Attested Verbs
[5.237] Examples
| (5.94) | a. | Die Kinder wimmeln auf den Platz. |
| b. | Der Platz wimmelt von Kindern. |
[5.238] In German, applicatives are typically attested with verbal prefixes like be- (5.95 a) or verbal particles like ein- (5.95 b), see Section 7.8. In such alternations, the role that is marked as an accusative object changes. The accusative argument is the one that is more affected, so changing the accusative role also changes the perspective of the action (similar to what happens with antipassives, see Section 5.7.6).
| (5.95) | a. | Ich werfe Dreck auf dich. Ich bewerfe dich mit Dreck. |
| b. | Ich wickle das Tuch um den Arm. Ich wickle den Arm in dem Tuch ein. |
[5.239] With a few verbs this alternation is attested without a verbal prefix or particle. In most cases this includes an optional mit instrument that alternates with an accusative object (5.96 a-c), cf. the English ‘spray/load’ alternation from Levin (1993: 50-51). This instrument alternation is closely related to the mit antipassive (see Section 5.7.6.5). In addition to the antipassive, in this case another accusative alternates with a locative preposition that is obligatorily present (5.96 c,d).
| (5.96) | a. | Er füllt die Flasche mit Schnaps. | |
| b. | Er füllt die Flasche. | ||
| c. | Er füllt den Schnaps in die Flasche. | ||
| d. | * | Er füllt den Schnaps. |
[5.240] Some verbs of cutting and breaking allow for an exchange of the objects to be dissected and the parts that are the result of the dissection (5.97 a,b). These verbs seem to be verbs that can occur both with and without the prefix zer- (5.97 b,c). Any prepositional phrases are non-governed prepositions.
| (5.97) | a. | Ich schneide Streifen (aus dem Blatt Papier). |
| b. | Ich schneide das Blatt Papier (zu Streifen). | |
| c. | Ich zerschneide das Blatt Papier. |
[5.241] Attested Verbs
[5.242] Examples
[5.243] Notes
[5.244] For the verb schießen ‘to shoot’ this alternation (5.98 a,b) is possible better analysed as a combination of two accusative antipassives. It is also possible to express both roles as prepositional phrases (5.98 c). This is not possible with the other verbs in this group.
| (5.98) | a. | Ich schieße eine Kugel auf den Bären. |
| b. | Ich schieße den Bären mit einer Kugel. | |
| c. | Ich schieße mit einer Kugel auf den Bären |
[5.245] The verb vergleichen ‘to compare’ allows for the flipping of roles (5.99 a,b). This alternation is slightly different from the other verbs in this class as there is not location involved.
| (5.99) | a. | Er vergleicht mich mit einem Affen. |
| b. | Er vergleicht einen Affe mit mir. |
[5.246] Another ‘raised’ possessor is the alternation in which the possessor of an accusative can be expressed alternatively with a prepositional phrase (5.100 a,b). This is called an “Attribute Object Alternation” in Levin (1993: 74).
| (5.100) | a. | Ich bewundere seine Ehrlichkeit. |
| b. | Ich bewundere die Ehrlichkeit bei ihm. |
[5.247] Attested Verbs
[5.248] Examples
[6.1] When using the grammatical term reflexive a distinction has to be made between ‘self-inflicting’ reflexive reference and reflexive pronouns. In German, reflexive pronouns are easily identified in the third person as sich. One of the functions of reflexive pronouns is to indicate reflexive reference, i.e. to mark the identity of two different roles of the verb. For example, the verb waschen ‘to wash’ has two roles, the ‘washer’ and the ‘washee’ (6.1 a). Crucially, with self-inflicting reflexive reference using sich (6.1 b) these two different roles are still expressed in the sentence. The reflexive pronoun in (6.1 b) only indicates that the two roles are performed by the same participant, opposing it to (6.1 a) in which the two roles are performed by different participants. With the reflexive pronoun in (6.1 b), both roles are still overtly present, so there is no reduction of the valency and there is no grammatical remapping of roles, and thus there is no diathesis.35
| (6.1) | a. | Er wäscht ihn. |
| b. | Er wäscht sich. |
[6.2] Although German does not show diathesis for self-inflicting reflexive reference, the reflexive pronoun is used in many other constructions that show diathesis, for example anticausatives (6.2 a), see Section 6.5.2 or antipassives (6.2 b), see Section 6.7.5. In these examples, the reflexive pronoun sich is not filling any role, but is marking a valency alternation. There is a long tradition to call such constructions middle. However, there turn out to be very many different kinds of ‘middle’ alternations, so I prefer to be more precise in separating and naming them here in this chapter (see also Kunze 1997).
| (6.2) | a. | Ich schließe den Schrank. Der Schrank schließt sich. |
| b. | Ich beklage den Lärm. Ich beklage mich über den Lärm. |
[6.3] There are also various verbs for which there does not exist a reflexive alternation, but only the option with a reflexive pronoun is retained. Such ‘obligatorily reflexive’ verbs are not very common, but clearly attested, e.g. sich verspäten ‘to be late’ and sich aneignen ‘to appropriate’ (6.3), see Section 6.3.
| (6.3) | a. | Die S-Bahn hat sich wieder einmal verspätet. |
| b. | Ich habe mir eine neue Sprache angeeignet. |
[6.4] In this chapter those diatheses are discussed that only differ as to the addition of a reflexive pronoun. There are many more diatheses involving reflexive pronouns that will be discussed in subsequent chapters. In those diatheses there is more than one morphosyntactic change. For example, with some verbs the addition of a preverb also induces the addition of a reflexive pronouns (6.4 a), see e.g. Section 7.7.10. There is also the famous German anticausative diatheses that combines a reflexive pronoun with a manner adverbial (6.4 b), see Section 8.5.2. Also widely discussed in German grammar is the combination of a reflexive pronoun with the light verb lassen (6.4 c), see Section 10.5.3. Less widely discussed are diatheses that combine a reflexive pronoun with light verbs like fühlen or geben (6.4 d), see e.g. Section 9.5.12.
| (6.4) | a. | Der Hund ist nach Hause gelaufen. Der Hund hat sich im Wald verlaufen. |
| b. | Ich verkaufe das Buch. Das Buch verkauft sich gut. | |
| c. | Ich schließe den Schrank. Der Schrank lässt sich schließen. | |
| d. | Er schlug seine Mitbewerber. Seine Mitbewerber geben sich geschlagen. |
[6.5] Amidst the large variety of diatheses with reflexive pronouns, there are a few generalisations that stand out:
[6.6] NOTE: see also Section 10.5.6
[6.7] There are six local groups of diatheses that seem prominent enough to be given a German name. I propose the following names for these. Note that there are many more prominent diatheses that involve a reflexive pronoun, but these are fixed stacks together with other marking (preverbs, adverbials or light verbs) and will be discussed in later chapters.
[6.8] In most situations, the German reflexive pronouns are identical to the regular pronouns as shown in Table 6.1. Only in the 3rd person there exists a special reflexive pronoun sich, both for the singular and the plural. For this reason, I will illustrate reflexive constructions mostly using 3rd person masculine nouns or pronouns with the overtly reflexive pronoun sich. In this chapter, I will often use the word sich as a technical term in the meaning ‘reflexive pronoun’ as an abbreviation. The difference between a dative and an accusative reflexive pronoun is only visible in the 1st and 2nd person singular.
| Case | 1 Sing. | 2 Sing. | 3 Sing. | 1 Plur. | 2 Plur. | 3 Plur. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dative | mir | dir | sich | uns | euch | sich |
| Accusative | mich | dich | sich | uns | euch | sich |
[6.9] The accusative sich is much more common than the dative sich. There seems to be a very strong tendency (though not without exceptions) for the dative reflexive pronoun only to be possible when there is a further accusative argument present in the sentence. Further, the dative reflexive pronoun does not occur in any of the diatheses discussed in this chapter. All non-role marking uses of sich are in the accusative.
[6.10] The pronoun sich always refers to the nominative subject (6.5 a), except in some situations after another diathesis (6.5 b) or other light verbs:
| (6.5) | a. | Ich wasche mich. |
| b. | Er lässt mich mich waschen. | |
| c. | Laß mich mich an dir ergetzen - bin so wild, seit ich dich sah, Venus Amathusia.36 |
[6.11] With light verb constructions, intended coreference with the nominative subject cannot be marked with sich anymore (6.6 a,b).
| (6.6) | a. | Er lässt mich ihn waschen. | |
| b. | * | Er lässt mich sich waschen. |
[6.12] There are a few verbs that seem to allow for coreference with a non-nominative argument (Duden 273-274). These are very unusual, with (6.7 b) being strange, though not impossible. Example (6.8) clearly shows the problematic status of such reflexive pronouns. The word order in (6.8 a) only leaves the possibility of sich referring to the nominative subject. In contrast, the unusual word order in (6.8 b) makes it difficult to interpret the sentence, with both referential options of sich being possible.
| (6.7) | a. | Ich habe ihn über den Zustand aufgeklärt. | |
| b. | ? | Ich habe ihn über sich aufgeklärt |
| (6.8) | a. | Sie zeigt sich ihrem Freund. | |
| b. | ? | Sie zeigt ihrem Freund sich selbst. |
[6.13] The reflexive pronoun sich undoubtedly plays a role in disambiguating reference in the third person. However, ambiguity remains with genitives (6.9 a), which do not have a lexicalised reflexive pronoun in German. As a result, (6.9 a) can both be interpreted as disjoined reference (6.9 b) and as coreference (6.9 c).
| (6.9) | a. | Er wäscht seine Haare. |
| b. | Er wäscht ihm die Haare. | |
| c. | Er wäscht sich die Haare. |
[6.14] Genitive arguments are vanishing from the German language, so it is difficult to find examples of a proper genitive argument coreferent with the nominative subject (6.10).
| (6.10) | Ich erinnre mich meiner, wie ich, Dich liebend.37 |
[6.15] As already seen in the previous example (6.10), three coreferents are also possible (6.11 a). With both an accusative and a dative coreferent (6.11 b) things get really interesting in the third person, as both will turn into sich, leading to a sequence of two sich reflexive pronouns (6.11 c).
| (6.11) | a. | Morgen putze ich mir meine Schuhe. |
| b. | Ich schreibe Gedichte, weil ich mich mir selbst erklären will. | |
| c. | Sie will sich sich selbst erklären. |
[6.16] A small group of verbs obligatorily needs a reflexive pronoun coreferencing the nominative subject. Very probably, such verbs originally also allowed constructions without this obligatory coreferencing sich pronoun, but for some reason that usage without sich got out-of-use. In various cases this ongoing development can be observed in current German, for example in cases in which the coreferencing usage (6.12 a), (6.13 a) appear to be more frequent compared to the non-coreferencing usage (6.12 b,c), (6.13 b).
| (6.12) | a. | Ich bemühe mich. | |
| b. | ? | Ich bemühe dich. | |
| c. | Leider kann ich es nicht ganz auswendig, sonst brauchte ich dich nicht zu bemühen.38 |
| (6.13) | a. | Ich beziehe mich auf das Gespräch. |
| b. | Er bezieht die Verdächtigung auf sein ungewöhnliches Benehmen. |
[6.17] Among the verbs with obligatory sich, the following valency patterns are commonly attested:
[6.18] In contrast, verbs with the following valency patterns are unattested, or only attested rarely in special collocations:
[6.19] Comparing these two groups, the generalisation can be formulated that dative sich is only possible when there is an accusative argument present and the accusative sich is not possible with a dative argument present.
[6.20] Various verbs describing behaviour like verirren ‘to get lost’ (6.14) need an obligatory reflexive pronoun.
| (6.14) | Vier Wanderer haben sich im Gebirge verirrt. |
[6.21] Attested Verbs
[6.22] Examples
[6.23] A widespread phenomenon are verbs with an obligatory accusative sich with a governed preposition (see Section 5.2), like entschließen ‘to decide’ (6.15 a,b).
| (6.15) | a. | Ich entschließe mich zu einer Reise. |
| b. | Ich entschließe mich dazu, eine Reise zu machen. |
[6.24] Attested Verbs
[6.25] Examples
[6.26] Notes
[6.27] The verb sich verlassen ‘to rely on’ (9.107 a) has a completely different meaning from verlassen ohne sich ‘to leave’ (6.16 b).
| (6.16) | a. | Ich verlasse mich auf dich. |
| b. | Ich verlasse dich. |
[6.28] The verb aussprechen ‘to pronounce’ (6.17 a) has a rather different meaning from sich aussprechen, which can mean ‘to argue for’ with a preposition für (6.17 b) or ‘speak about disagreements’ with a comitative mit (6.17 c)
| (6.17) | a. | Ich spreche die Worte aus. |
| b. | Ich spreche mich für Erneuerungen aus. | |
| c. | Ich spreche mich mit dir aus. |
[6.29] The verb abgeben ‘to give away’ (6.18 a) has a rather different meaning from sich abgeben ‘to mess around’ (6.18 b,c).
| (6.18) | a. | Ich habe den Brief abgegeben. |
| b. | Ich habe mich mit ihm abgegeben. |
[6.30] The verb sich schicken ‘to acquiesce’ is an old-fashioned meaning of schicken ‘to send’. Another usage of the same verb stem typically occurs with es and negative polarity, meaning ’to be not suitable: es schickt sich nicht*.
[6.31] A special group of verbs in this class are verbs with an reciprocal mit preposition, like einigen ‘to reach an agreement’ (6.19 a). On first notice, the mit phrase might look like a comitative argument (6.20 a). Just like comitative phrases, reciprocal mit phrases are not governed prepositions, compare (6.19 b,c) and (6.20 b,c), see also Section 5.2.4. However, different from comitative phrases, reciprocal mit phrases do not allow for the addition of zusammen (6.19 c), nor can with be replaced by ohne (6.19 d). The addition of zusammen and the replacement with ohne is possible with comitative mit (6.20 c,d).
[6.32] Verbs with reciprocal mit are sometimes called “real reciprocals” (or ‘reciproca tantum’, Wiemer & Nedjalkov 2007: 467-468) because they can be considered to be inherently reciprocal, although they still can have a singular subject (see Section 6.4.14 for the reciprocal constructions with plural subjects).
| (6.19) | a. | Ich habe mich mit meinem Nachbar geeinigt. | |
| b. | * | Ich habe mich damit geeinigt, dass der Nachbar geht. | |
| c. | * | Ich habe mich zusammen mit meinem Nachbar geeinigt. | |
| d. | * | Ich habe mich ohne meinen Nachbar geeignet. |
| (6.20) | a. | Ich habe mich mit meinem Nachbar betrunken. | |
| b. | * | Ich habe mich damit betrunken, dass der Nachbar geht. | |
| c. | Ich habe mich zusammen mit meinem Nachbar betrunken. | ||
| d. | Ich habe mich ohne meinen Nachbar betrunken. |
[6.33] Attested Verbs
[6.34] Examples
[6.35] Notes
[6.36] The verb verklemmen cannot be used in the singular mit mit but only reciprocally in the plural.
| (6.21) | a. | Die Zahnräder verklemmen sich. | |
| b. | * | Das erste Zahnrad verklemmt sich mit dem nächsten. |
[6.37] Various reciprocal mit verbs also exist without reflexive pronoun, but only in a completely different lexical meaning, e.g. treffen, which means ‘to strike, to hit’ without a reflexive pronoun (6.22 a), but ‘to meet’ with a reflexive pronoun (6.22 b). Likewise, vertragen means ‘to tolerate something inanimate’ without reflexive, but ‘to get along with a human’ with reflexive.
| (6.22) | a. | Ich treffe das Tor. |
| b. | Ich treffe mich mit dir. |
[6.38] The verb streiten ‘to argue’ seems to have a free reflexive, i.e. it can be used both with and without reflexive (see [#sec:reflexive-free-preposition]).
[6.39] A few verbs with obligatory sich additionally need an obligatory (adverbial) local prepositional phrase.
| (6.23) | a. | Das Rathaus befindet sich am Marktplatz. | |
| b. | * | Das Rathaus befindet sich. |
[6.40] Attested Verbs
[6.41] Examples
[6.42] Notes
[6.43] The verbs ereignen and zutragen, both meaning ‘to happen’, both need a non-governed preposition (6.24 a,b). However, these verbs also allow a temporal adverbial phrase. (6.24 c)
| (6.24) | a. | Der Unfall hat sich an der Kreuzung ereignet/zugetragen. | |
| b. | * | Der Unfall ereignete sich. | |
| c. | Der Unfall ereignete sich vor Sonnenuntergang. |
[6.44] The verb aufhalten ‘to stay’ is possibly related in meaning to the verb aufhalten ‘to stop something’ discussed in Section 6.5.8.
[6.45] This pattern with an obligatory accusative reflexive with a dative is exceedingly rare. There are a few more verbs in which the dative is optional (see Section 6.3.11). Semantically, these verbs are closely related to the verbs showing a dative passive diathesis (see Section 6.9.1).
[6.46] Attested Verbs
[6.47] Examples
[6.48] Accusative sich combined with an obligatory genitive argument is clearly attested, although all these uses are rather old-fashioned.
[6.49] Attested Verbs
[6.50] Examples
[6.51] It is exceedingly rare to have a dative sich without other arguments. A possible example is the (arguably lexicalised) collocation Mühe geben.
[6.52] Attested Verbs
[6.53] Examples
[6.54] Attested Verbs
[6.55] Examples
[6.56] A dative sich with an obligatory accusative is clearly attested, though not very frequent. Note that the meaning of these verbs all include some kind of (cognitive) appropriation, like with vorstellen ‘image’ (6.25 a). The prefix er- occurs recurrently with the meaning “to appropriate something successfully”, like with erspielen ‘to win’ (6.25 b).
| (6.25) | a. | Ich stelle mir das Ergebnis vor. |
| b. | Ich erspiele mir einen Gewinn. |
[6.57] Attested Verbs
[6.58] Examples
[6.59] Notes
[6.60] The verb denken only occurs in this structure in the rather old-fashioned usage with the meaning ‘to imagine’ (6.26).
| (6.26) | Ich denke mir den Vorgang in folgender Weise.39 |
[6.61] The verb merken only occurs in this structure in the meaning ‘to remember’ (6.27 a), and not in the usage of bemerken (6.27 b) or anmerken (6.27 c).
| (6.27) | a. | Ich merke mir deine Telefonnummer |
| b. | Ich (be)merke seine Absicht | |
| c. | Du darfst dir das nicht (an)merken lassen |
[6.62] The verb vorstellen also has two rather different meanings. In this construction with an obligatory dative sich it means ‘to imagine’ (6.28 a). The other meaning ‘to introduce’ (6.28 b,c) has a possible accusative reflexive (see Section X).
| (6.28) | a. | Ich stelle mir den Konsul vor. |
| b. | Ich stelle mich dem Konsul vor. | |
| c. | Ich stelle dich dem Konsul vor. |
[6.63] The verb abquälen has two rather different meanings. Only the meaning ‘to work hard for something’ (6.29 a) shows this construction with an obligatory dative sich.
| (6.29) | a. | Ich muss mir jede Zeile abquälen. (‘erarbeiten’) |
| b. | Ich habe mich mit der Arbeit abgequält. (‘plagen’) |
[6.64] Verbs with obligatory sich can be seen as just regular lexicalised verbs, which in turn are applicable to any of the alternations discussed in the previous two chapters. Curiously, such alternations seem to be rather rare. The attested cases will be discussed in this section. Arguably, these diatheses belong together with the diatheses from the previous two chapters
[6.65] The collocation sich drehen um ‘to concern’ can be used both with a regular nominative subject (6.30 a) and without (6.30 b). This usage of this verb is clearly metaphorically derived from the local meaning ‘to revolve around’ (6.30 c), but in that usage the dropping of the nominative is not possible. This diathesis is the same as the drop described in Section 5.5.1.
| (6.30) | a. | Der Streit dreht sich um das 1998 erworbene Firmengelände. | |
| b. | In diesem Streit dreht es sich um das 1998 erworbene Firmengelände. | ||
| c. | Der Mond dreht sich um die Erde. | ||
| d. | * | Bei dem Mond dreht es sich um die Erde. |
[6.66] Attested Verbs
[6.67] A small group of obligatorily intransitive sich verbs allow for a dative to be dropped (6.31). This diathesis is the same as the drop described in [sec:case-dative-drop] but with an additional reflexive pronoun in both alternants. The verbs in this class establish some further examples of the unusual situation of an accusative sich with a dative argument (see Section 6.3.5).
| (6.31) | a. | Die Rebellen ergeben sich. |
| b. | Die Rebellen ergeben sich der Polizei. |
[6.68] Attested Verbs
[6.69] Examples
[6.70] Notes
[6.71] This ergeben ‘capitulate’ is different from the prepositional passive ergeben ‘result in’. The verb ergeben ‘capitulate’ formerly allowed a regular (non-reflexive) accusative argument with a meaning similar to modern übergeben ‘turn over’. Today this is not possible anymore.
[6.72] In some of the (uncommon) verbs with an accusative sich and dative argument (6.32 a), the dative can be replaced by a (governed) prepositional phrase (6.32 b,c). This diathesis is the same as described in Section 5.7.8 for verbs without reflexive marking.
| (6.32) | a. | Ich füge mich dem Gesetz. |
| b. | Ich füge mich in meinem Schicksal. | |
| c. | Die machistische Gesellschaft hat sich nicht geändert und die meisten Frauen fügen sich darin.41 |
[6.73] Attested Verbs
[6.74] Examples
[6.75] Some obligatorily sich verbs with a genitive argument allow for the genitive argument to be replaced by a (governed) prepositional phrase (6.33 a,b), just like the antipassives in Section 5.7.13. Many of these constructions with a genitive are old-fashioned or even completely out of use (6.33 c,d). Note that these prepositional phrases seem to be governed prepositions (6.33 a)
| (6.33) | a. | Ich erinnere dich des Versprechens. (until ±1850 with genitive) |
| b. | Ich erinnere dich an das Versprechen. | |
| c. | Ich denke der vergangenen Jahre. | |
| d. | Ich denke an die vergangenen Jahre. | |
| e. | Ich denke daran, dass du morgen Geburtstag hast. |
[6.76] Attested Verbs
[6.77] Examples
[6.78] Notes
[6.79] The verb fürchten only occurs in this diathesis in the very old-fashioned meaning of ‘to care for’. The contemporary meaning ‘to be afraid’ does not show this diathesis.
| (6.34) | Ich fürchte mich deiner. Ich fürchte mich über dich. |
[6.80] There are three different kinds of alternations involving reflexive pronouns that do not involve any changing of roles (i.e. no diathesis). The well-known reflexive and reciprocal constructions are among them. Less widely acknowledged there are also some verbs that allow for a ‘free’ reflexive pronoun.
[6.81] Some verbs allow for both a construction with and without sich, but there is no difference in the valency between these two constructions. The difference in meaning between the two alternants is small and is in need for more in-depth study in all cases presented below. It is also possible that the occurrence of a ‘free’ reflexive is a dialectal phenomenon, see e.g. the apparent extension of reflexive usage in Austrian German as observed in Ziegler (2010). Note that also for these verbs a dative reflexive pronoun only occurs when a full accusative argument is present. An early discussion of the phenomenon is found in Stötzel (1970: 174-177).
[6.82] The semantic difference between these two alternants of the verbs in this group deserves further investigation. The verb knien ‘to knee’ in (6.35) suggests that there might be a difference in dynamics: the construction without reflexive pronoun is a state, while the construction with reflexive pronoun describes a change of state. However, this difference does not seem to hold for all examples in this section.
| (6.35) | a. | Er kniet auf dem Kissen. |
| b. | Er kniet sich auf das Kissen. |
[6.83] Covert anticausatives (see Section 4.5.5) might seem to have a ‘free’ reflexive (6.36 a,b). However, the construction with sich (6.36 b) is just a ‘self-inflicting’ reflexive of the transitive (6.36 c).
| (6.36) | a. | Ich habe geduscht. |
| b. | Ich habe mich geduscht. | |
| c. | Ich habe den Elefanten geduscht. |
[6.84] Similarly, reflexive anticausative (see Section 6.5.2) might seem to have a ‘free’ reflexive (6.37 a). However, the two possibilities are clearly distinguished by a different perfekt auxiliary (6.37 b). Also a transitive variant is possible (6.37 c). This all indicates that a verb like abkühlen is a reflexive anticausative, and the intransitive construction without sich is a ‘Zustandspassiv’ anticausative (see Section 9.5.15).
| (6.37) | a. | Die Luft kühlt (sich) ab. |
| b. | Die Luft ist abgekühlt. Die Luft hat sich abgekühlt. | |
| c. | Der Regen hat die Luft abgekühlt. |
[6.85] Attested Verbs
[6.86] Examples
[6.87] Notes
[6.88] The verb ausruhen until very recently was commonly used without sich, but this is slightly awkward in contemporary German (6.38 a). Constructions without sich are still widespread in non-finite and subordinate uses (6.38 b-d).
| (6.38) | a. | ? | Sie ruht aus. |
| b. | Sie blieb stehen um auszuruhen. | ||
| c. | Sie musste ausruhen. | ||
| d. | Ich sehe, dass sie ausruht. |
[6.89] The verb irren without reflexive pronoun also seems to be old-fashioned (6.39).
| (6.39) | Es irrt der Mensch so lang er strebt.42 |
[6.90] Although there is definitively a different ‘feel’ between (6.40 a,b), the difference is difficult to pin down. The sentence without sich seems to be more static, describing a fixed situation (6.40 a), while the variant with sich is more dynamic. However, whether this is an accurate description of the (fine) difference between these alternants with all verbs needs a more in-depth investigation.
| (6.40) | a. | Ich streite mit dir um die Wurst. |
| b. | Ich streite mich mit dir um die Wurst. |
[6.91] Attested Verbs
[6.92] Examples
[6.93] Notes
[6.94] The verb entscheiden ‘to decide’ allows for an accusative (6.41 a), but not for an accusative sich (6.41 b). Note that semantically the sich in (6.41 c) is not a reflexive construction because it is not the the same role as the accusative in (6.41 a).
| (6.41) | a. | Ich entscheide den Fall. | |
| b. | * | Ich entscheide mich den Fall. | |
| c. | Ich entscheide mich für den Angriff. |
[6.95] Prepositional causatives (see Sections 5.5.10-5.6.1) also might seem to have a ‘free’ sich (6.42 a,b). However, this is not the case because the construction with sich (6.42 b) is just a reflexive of the transitive (6.42 c).
| (6.42) | a. | Ich stürze ins Wasser. |
| b. | Ich stürze mich ins Wasser. | |
| c. | Ich stürze den Elefanten ins Wasser. |
[6.96] The verb sorgen ‘to take care of’ changes preposition with the addition of sich (6.43 a,b), Both prepositions are governed prepositions (6.43 c,d). Such an alternation between different governed prepositions might be considered a whole new class of diatheses not yet acknowledged in this study.
| (6.43) | a. | Er sorgt für seine Mutter. |
| b. | Er sorgt sich um seine Mutter. | |
| c. | Er sorgt dafür, dass es seiner Mutter gut geht. | |
| d. | Er sorgt sich darum, dass es seiner Mutter gut geht. |
[6.97] The verb schleichen ‘to sneak’ changes the perfect auxiliary from sein to haben with the additional reflexive.
| (6.44) | a. | Ich bin nach Hause geschlichen. |
| b. | Ich habe mich nach Hause geschlichen. |
[6.98] Attested Verbs
[6.99] So-called ‘free’ datives (6.45 a,b) are widespread in German (see Section X). Such a dative can mostly also be used reflexively (6.45 c). Comparing (6.45 a) with (6.45 c) seems to suggest a free dative sich. However, this is just a combination of a free dative and the regular self-inflicting reflexive usage.
| (6.45) | a. | Ich habe ein Haus gebaut. |
| b. | Ich habe ihm ein Haus gebaut. | |
| c. | Ich habe mir ein Haus gebaut. |
[6.100] In contrast, the verb ansehen ‘observe’ also allows for a construction with and without reflexive pronoun (6.46 a,c), but it is not possible to use a non-coreferential dative (6.46 b). Such verbs are much less common and will be listed here. All verbs know to me have preverbs (see Chapter X).
| (6.46) | a. | Ich habe das Haus angesehen. | |
| b. | * | Ich habe ihm das Haus angesehen. | |
| c. | Ich habe mir das Haus angesehen. |
[6.101] Attested Verbs
[6.102] Examples
[6.103] Notes
[6.104] The verb ausdenken ‘to contrive’ without reflexive pronoun appears to be old-fashioned (6.47).
| (6.47) | Da dachte er eine List aus.44 |
[6.105] The verb ersparen ‘to save money’ has a free reflexive (6.48 a,b). The same verb can also mean ‘to spare somebody something’. In that meaning it takes dative and accusative arguments (6.48 c).
| (6.48) | a. | Er hat alles erspart. |
| b. | Er hat sich alles erspart. | |
| c. | Er hat mir jede Menge Arbeit erspart. |
[6.106] To test for the presence of the self-inflicting reflexive construction, there are various syntactic characteristics to look out for. First, it is always possible to add the intensifier selbst to the reflexive pronoun (6.49 a). Further, the pronoun sich can be negated (6.49 b) and stressed (6.49 c). These characteristics do not hold for any of the diatheses marked by sich.
| (6.49) | a. | Er sieht sich (selbst). |
| b. | Er sieht nicht sich selbst. | |
| c. | Er sieht nur sich selbst. |
[6.107] This construction is often seen as the prototypical ‘self-inflicted’ reflexive: a transitive verb with a nominative and an accusative argument allows for the accusative to be replaced by a reflexive pronoun, indicating that the action is performed on the nominative subject itself (6.50 a,b). This alternation is possible for very many verbs that can have both an animate nominative and accusative argument.
| (6.50) | a. | Ich wasche das Auto. |
| b. | Ich wasche mich (selbst). |
[6.108] The list of verbs presented here can easily be extended with more examples. However, care has to be taken not to include verbs with highly similar antipassive alternations (see Section 6.7.5) like with fürchten ‘to fear’ (6.51 a,b) or anticausative alternations (see Section 6.5.2) like with freuen ‘to be happy’ (6.51 c,d).
| (6.51) | a. | Er fürchtet den Ausgang des Verfahrens. |
| b. | Er fürchtet sich vor dem Ausgang des Verfahrens. | |
| c. | Dein Erfolg freut ihn. | |
| d. | Er freut sich über deinen Erfolg |
[6.109] The crucial difference between a ‘self-inflicted’ reflexive construction and these other alternations is that with reflexives the argument is really replaced by the reflexive pronoun, or, in other words, the reflexive pronoun is the argument. With verbs like waschen ‘to wash’ in (6.51 a,b) above, there is both an agent and a patient of the verb, and these two roles can be filled by one and the same person (as marked by the reflexive). This is not the case with antipassive and anticausative in (6.51 b,d). This can be seen by the possibility to retain the original argument as a prepositional phrase in these cases. The pronoun sich does not replace any argument here (for more discussion about these alternations, see the respective sections below).
[6.110] Attested Verbs
[6.111] Examples
[6.112] Notes
[6.113] The verb stoßen ‘to push’ has an interesting change in preferred prepositional adjunct between non-reflexive (6.52 a) and reflexive usage (6.52 b), in accordance to the verb semantics. Pushing something else will normally result in a movement, e.g. into or out of somewhere. Conversely, pushing oneself will typically be against something. The ‘Zustandspassiv’ (see Section X) again changes the direction of movement and accordingly the preposition (6.52 c). However, these conventional implicatures can be changed by a suitable context (6.52 d,e).
| (6.52) | a. | Er stößt mich in den Teich. |
| b. | Ich stoße mich am Tisch. | |
| c. | Ich bin auf ihn gestoßen. | |
| d. | Er stößt mich an die Wand. | |
| e. | Ich stosse mich in die Tiefe meiner Finsternis, um meine Finsternis zu erkennen45 |
[6.114] Verbs with a dative argument (see Section X) can often be used reflexively, although such usage often has a rather poetic or humorous touch to it (6.53 a-c). The verbs listed here can surely be extended when (even) more poetic freedom is allowed. However, this construction does not appear to be very frequent.46
| (6.53) | a. | Ich begegne mir selbst mit größter Achtung. |
| b. | Ich antworte mir dann mal selber. | |
| c. | Ich gleiche mir nicht einen Augenblick.47 |
[6.115] Note: also possible with “free” datives?
| (6.54) | a. | Ich baue ihm ein Haus. |
| b. | Er baut sich ein Haus. |
[6.116] Attested Verbs
[6.117] Examples
[6.118] Self-inflicting sich is widespread in governed prepositional phrases (6.55 a,b). Probably, all governed prepositional phrases that can have a human participant allow such reflexive pronouns. The case of the reflexive pronoun is governed by the preposition.
| (6.55) | a. | Karl kämpft mit dem Hund. |
| b. | Karl kämpft mit sich. |
| (6.56) | a. | Ich spreche von dir. |
| b. | Ich spreche von mir. | |
| c. | Er spricht von sich. |
[6.119] Attested Verbs
[6.120] For ditransitive verbs that allow for a nominative, accusative and dative argument it is extremely common to allow for a self-inflicting reflexive pronoun in the dative (6.57 a,b). Only an illustrative selection of verbs are listed in this section.
| (6.57) | a. | Ich schenke ihm eine Tafel Schokolade. |
| b. | Ich schenke mir (selbst) eine Tafel Schokolade. |
[6.121] Attested Verbs
[6.122] Examples
[6.123] With verbs that allow for the possessor-of-accusative dative alternation (“possessor datives”, see Section X, e.g. versalzen, zerbrechen) this dative reflexive can lead to sentences with three coreferent words (6.58 a,b).
| (6.58) | a. | Ich putze mir meine Schuhe. |
| b. | Er versalzt sich seine Suppe. |
[6.124] There is also a crucial opposition between an accusative (6.59 c) and dative reflexive (6.59 d). This is possible for verbs like waschen that allow both for an animate accusative (6.59 a) and for the possessor-of-accusative dative alternation (6.59 b). Care has to be taken not to confuse these two alternations in the third person, because the reflexive sich is used for both accusative (6.59 e) and dative (6.59 f).
| (6.59) | a. | Ich wasche dich. |
| b. | Ich wasche dir den Rücken. | |
| c. | Ich wasche mich. | |
| d. | Ich wasche mir den Rücken. | |
| e. | Er wäscht sich. | |
| f. | Er wäscht sich den Rücken. |
[6.125] Attested Verbs
[6.126] Examples
[6.127] In contrast to the previous reflexive construction, it is uncommon for ditransitive verbs to allow for a reflexive accusative (6.60 a,b). The verbs listed here are surely not all that allow for this construction, but it is a rather restricted phenomenon and there do not seem to be very many more verbs of this kind.
| (6.60) | a. | Ich passe den Bürgersteig dem Plan an. |
| b. | Ich passe mich dem Plan an. |
[6.128] In specific contexts, some ditransitive verbs allow for both a dative reflexive (6.61 a), an accusative reflexive (6.61 b) or even both (6.61 c). Theoretically, this should lead to quite astonishing constructions in the third person (6.61 d), which seem to be mostly incomprehensible. However, note the attested example in (6.61 e).
| (6.61) | a. | Ich erkläre es mir so. |
| b. | Ich erkläre mich dir. | |
| c. | Ich schreibe Gedichte, denn ich will mich mir selbst erklären. | |
| d. | Es ist bekannt, dass sie sich sich selbst erklären will. | |
| e. | Objektivität und eigenständiges Weltbewußtsein erlangt der Mensch nicht dadurch, daß er seinen Willen zum Handeln aufgibt und seine Wertungen suspendiert, sondern dadurch, daß er sich sich selbst gegenüberstellt und prüft. (Mannheim, Karl: Ideologie und Utopie, Frankfurt a.M.: Klostermann 1985 [1929], S. 43. From DWDS) |
[6.129] Many of these verbs seem to have a rather special meaning with a reflexive pronoun. They also seem to be close to the ‘autocausative’ accusative drop examples (see Section 6.7.1).
[6.130] Attested Verbs
[6.131] Examples
[6.132] Notes
[6.133] The verb vorstellen has two different meanings. In this alternation it means ‘to introduce’ (6.62 a,b). The other meaning ‘to imagine’ (6.62 c) has an obligatory dative reflexive (see Section 6.3.9).
| (6.62) | a. | Ich stelle ihn dem Konsul vor. |
| b. | Ich stelle mich dem Konsul vor. | |
| c. | Ich stelle mir den Konsul vor. |
[6.134] Because Genitive arguments are rare overall, there are also only very few examples of reflexive alternations like (6.63 a,b).
| (6.63) | a. | Er bezichtigt mich des Mordes. |
| b. | Ich bezichtigte mich erfundener phantastischer Staatsverbrechen. |
[6.135] Attested Verbs
[6.136] Dative experiencers stemming from possessor raising (see Section 5.8.10) can also be self-inflicting (6.64 a,b), leading to possible dative reflexive pronouns (6.64 c).
| (6.64) | a. | Ich klopfe dir auf die Schulter. |
| b. | Ich klopfe mir auf die Schulter. | |
| c. | Er klopft sich auf die Schulter. |
[6.137] Attested Verbs
[6.138] These are intransitive verbs (6.65 a) that allow for a resultative construction (6.65 b), see Section 5.8.4 and possessor raising to a dative (6.65 c), see Section 5.8.11, leading possibly to a dative reflexive sich pronoun (6.65 d). This construction appears to be regularly taking an aus prepositional phrase.
| (6.65) | a. | Ich heule. |
| b. | Ich heule die Augen aus meinem Kopf. | |
| c. | Ich heule mir die Augen aus dem Kopf. | |
| d. | Das Kind heult sich die Augen aus dem Kopf. |
[6.139] Attested Verbs
[6.140] Examples
[6.141] Note: some verbs are necessarily reciprocal when used with sich: anfeuern
| (6.66) | a. | ich feuere ihn an | |
| b. | ? | ich feuere mich an | |
| c. | sie feuern sich an |
[6.142] The scope of this section is very similar to Wiemer & Nedjalkov (2007), though with a different thrust and scope.
[6.143] sich gegenseitig, or einander without sich
[6.144] Attested Verbs
[6.145] Examples
[6.146] Notes
[6.147] beschäftigen in the meaning of ‘to employ’ (6.67 a) not ‘to engage’ (6.67 b)
| (6.67) | a. | Karl und Anna beschäftigen sich gegenseitig in ihren jeweiligen Firmen. |
| b. | Karl und Anna beschäftigen sich miteinander. |
[6.148] Because a reciprocal is necessary plural subject, the difference between an accusative or dative reciprocal is not visible. Although there are verbs with dative arguments that can be used reciprocally, this cannot occur in the 1st or 2nd person singular, which are the only circumstances in which a difference between dative and accusative is overtly marked.
| (6.68) | a. | Karl vertraut dem Jungen. |
| b. | Karl und der Junge vertrauen sich (gegenseitig). | |
| c. | Wir vertrauen uns (gegenseitig). |
[6.149] Attested Verbs
[6.150] gegenseitig necessary for disambiguation
[6.151] Reflexive verbs with a preposition are needed for this! all prepositions with human arguments?
[6.152] Attested Verbs
[6.153] Examples
[6.154] This idiosyncratic diathesis with the verb handeln ‘to treat of’ (6.69 a,b) drops the nominative and consequently a non-phoric es is inserted. Note that the preposition changes from von to um, but they are both governed prepositions (6.69 c,d).
| (6.69) | a. | Das Buch handelt von Linguistik. |
| b. | In diesem Buch handelt es sich um Linguistik. | |
| c. | Das Buch handelt davon, dass er eine Weltreise macht. | |
| d. | In diesem Buch handelt es sich darum, dass er eine Weltreise macht. |
[6.155] Attested Verbs
[6.156] Examples
[6.157] These verbs have an “von alleine/von Geisterhand/ohne Ursache” reading. The pronoun sich is always accusative.
| (6.70) | a. | Ich schließe die Tür. |
| b. | Die Tür schließt sich (von alleine). |
[6.158] There is some literature about the difference between the unmarked anticausative (see Section 4.5.5) and the sich anticausative Section 6.5.2 (e.g. Schäfer 2008, Kurogo 2016).
[6.159] (Schäfer 2007: 35ff.)
| (6.71) | a. | Die Tür hat sich geschlossen. |
| b. | Die Tür ist geschlossen |
[6.160] Abgrenzung zu Zustandspassiv: Intransitiv mit haben.
| (6.72) | a. | Der Motor hat sich (eine Minute lang) abgekühlt. |
| b. | Der Motor ist (in einer Minute) abgekühlt (Kurogo: 31) |
[6.161] A durch phrase seems sometimes possible to retain agent, showing a similarity to a passive diathesis (Zifonun 1993:72). However, this only seems to be possible in special contexts (6.73 a,b). Most verbs in this class do not allow for a retention of the subject (6.73 c,d).
| (6.73) | a. | Der Preisverfall erhöhte den Warenabsatz. | |
| b. | Der Warenabsatz erhöhte sich durch den Preisverfall. | ||
| c. | Der Mann zeigte seine Wut. | ||
| d. | * | Seine Wut zeigte sich durch den Mann. |
[6.162] This alternation is probably more frequent in the Perfekt, because there is no focus on the action, but on the resulting state.
[6.163] Attested Verbs
[6.164] Examples
[6.165] Notes
[6.166] The verb stürzen both has a bare anticausative alternation (a,b, see Section X) and a sich anticausative alternation (6.74 a,c). In the present tense, this leads to an interesting opposition (6.74 d,e).
| (6.74) | a. | Er hat mich ins Wasser gestürzt. |
| b. | Ich bin ins Wasser gestürzt. | |
| c. | Ich habe mich ins Wasser gestürzt. | |
| d. | Ich stürze ins Wasser. | |
| e. | Ich stürze mich ins Wasser. |
[6.167] The verb beziehen has various rather different meanings. For the anticausative alternation it means ‘to cover’ (6.75 a), with the anticausative having a specific meaning concerning the weather (6.75 b).
| (6.75) | a. | Ich beziehe das Bett mit einem Laken. |
| b. | Der Himmel hat sich mit Wolken bezogen. |
[6.168] The verb wärmen ‘to heat’ shows two different diatheses. First an anticausative (6.76 a), leading to an accusative reflexive pronoun. Second, a possessor raising that also be used self-inflicting (6.76 b), leading to a dative reflexive pronoun.
| (6.76) | a. | Der Pullover wärmt mich. Ich wärme mich (mit dem Pullover). |
| b. | Ich wärme deine Finger. Ich wärme dir die Finger. Ich wärme mir die Finger. |
[6.169] Some ditransitives allow for an anticausative marked with a reflexive pronoun (6.77).
| (6.77) | a. | Er bietet mir neue Perspektiven. |
| b. | Neue Perspektiven bieten sich mir. |
[6.170] This might be more widespread with ‘free datives’ (6.78 a), but the grammatical status of examples like (6.78 b) deserves further investigation.
| (6.78) | a. | Ich schließe dir den Schrank. | |
| b. | ? | Der Schrank schließt sich dir. |
[6.171] Attested Verbs
[6.172] Examples
[6.173] Less widespread, some verbs with an accusative and a preposition allow for an anticausative marked with a reflexive pronoun (6.79). With the preposition an and auf the preposition is a governed preposition (6.79 c).
| (6.79) | a. | Das Lied erinnert den Mann an den Krieg. |
| b. | Der Mann erinnert sich an den Krieg. | |
| c. | Der Mann erinnert sich daran, dass er einen Termin beim Arzt hat. |
[6.174] Attested Verbs
[6.175] Examples
[6.176] With the preposition mit or von the prepositional phrase is not governed (6.80). There is a close affinity with -einander reciprocals (6.80 c), see Section: sich einander preposition reciprocal)
| (6.80) | a. | Ich verbinde die Lampe mit dem Stromnetz. |
| b. | Die Lampe verbindet sich nicht mit dem Stromnetz. | |
| c. | Die Lampe und das Stromnetz verbinden sich nicht miteinander. |
[6.177] Attested Verbs
[6.178] Examples
[6.179] Some verbs with a resultative alternation (6.81 a,b), see Section 5.8.5, allow for a reflexive anticausative (6.81 c).
| (6.81) | a. | Der Bauer hat den Pflug gezogen. |
| b. | Ich habe den Faden durch das Nadelöhr gezogen. | |
| c. | Die Straße hat sich früher durch das Dorf gezogen. |
[6.180] Attested Verbs
[6.181] Examples
| (6.82) | a. | Ich rechne mit einem Resultat. |
| b. | Ich rechne damit, dass alles gut wird. | |
| c. | Das Resultat rechnet sich (für mich). |
[6.182] Attested Verbs
[6.183] These verbs are similar to sich transitive anticausative, but the “von Geisterhand” reading is not possible. The original nominative can be retained as a prepositional phrase (6.83 a,b). All these prepositional phrases are governed prepositions (6.83 c). Interestingly, there appears to be a wide variety of propositions that are governed by the various verbs that allow for this diathesis. In many of these verbs, the role of the reflexive argument appears to be more of an experiencer than a real agent. A German name like ‘Erlebnispassiv’ might be suitable for this diathesis.
| (6.83) | a. | Der Preis empört den Kunden. |
| b. | Der Kunde empört sich über den Preis. | |
| c. | Der Kunde empört sich darüber, dass der Preis schon wieder gestiegen ist. |
[6.184] Note that the werden Passive is not possible for some of these verbs (6.84 a), though an impersonal passive of the reflexive conversive is possible (6.84 b). The verbs with a durch alternation, like lösen ‘to relase’ (6.85), there exist an interesting opposition between the reflexive conversive (6.85 b) and the werden passive (6.85 c).
| (6.84) | a. | * | Der Kunde wird empört durch den Preis. |
| b. | Über die Zerstörung der Schöpfung […] wird sich empört.52 |
| (6.85) | a. | Dieser Saft hat den Schleim gelöst. |
| b. | Der Schleim hat sich durch diesen Saft gelöst. | |
| c. | Der Schleim wird durch diesen Saft gelöst. |
[6.185] Attested Verbs
[6.186] Examples
[6.187] Notes
[6.188] The verb sich verabschieden (6.86 a) might also be thought of as an antipassive (6.86 b). However, it possibly better seen as an anticausative, related to (6.86 c). The reason is that the agent of (6.86 a) and the patient of (6.86 c) are both typically the participant who is leaving.
| (6.86) | a. | Ich verabschiede mich von ihm. |
| b. | Ich verabschiede ihn. | |
| c. | Er verabschiedet mich. |
[6.189] Reflexive diatheses are not used for promotion of arguments. The diathesis presented below is probably best be seen as a diachronic quirk, showing that every linguistic generalisation can be overruled by incidental developments of language change.
[6.190] These alternations are ongoing replacements of old-fashioned constructions. The presence of a reflexive pronoun can probably best be interpreted as a side-effect of the old accusative being supplemented by a new nominative.
[6.191] Attested Verbs
[6.192] Examples
[6.193] On first notice, examples like (6.87 a,b) looks very much like self-inflicted (‘reflexive’) alternation (see Section 6.4.5). However, in this case the sich pronoun in (6.87 b) does not have the same role as the accusative argument in (6.87 a). This can be shown syntactically by the impossibility of the coordination in (6.87 c).
| (6.87) | a. | Er äußert sein Bedauern über den Fall. | |
| b. | Er äußert sich über den Fall. | ||
| c. | * | Er äußert sich und sein Bedauern über den Fall. |
[6.194] The term autocausative is used by Geniušiené (1987: 183-184, 198-200) to describe the particular usage of reflexive constructions. Haspelmath (1987: 27-28) calls them endoreflexive. I prefer endoreflexive as it mnemonically includes the term ‘reflexive’. Cross-linguistically, endoreflexives are typically found with verbs that describe an action that is performed with the body like verstecken ‘to hide’ (6.88). However, for German it remains an open question whether these constructions are really different from self-inflicted reflexive constructions. Specifically, the coordination seems to be perfectly possible (6.88 c-e).
| (6.88) | a. | Er versteckt das Geschenk. |
| b. | Er versteckt sich. | |
| c. | Er versteckt sich und das Geschenk. | |
| d. | Politiker verstecken sich und ihre Botschaften hinter verschwurbelten Sätzen.53 | |
| e. | Sie verstecken sich und ihre Waffen.54 |
[6.195] The endoreflexive aspect most clearly emerges with verbs that hurt the body, like verbrennen ‘to burn’ (6.89) or schneiden ‘to cut’. The usage of these verbs with a reflexive pronoun normally implies that the body is only partially inflicted, i.e. only a part of the body is burned or cut. For this reason, the conjunction in (6.89 c) is strange and would only make sense in a context in which somebody would burn himself completely (cf. Elias Canetti’s novel Die Blendung).
| (6.89) | a. | Er verbrennt das Buch. | |
| b. | Er verbrennt sich. | ||
| c. | * | Er verbrennt sich und das Buch. |
[6.196] Attested Verbs
[6.197] Examples
[6.198] Notes
[6.199] The verb äußern ‘to express’ has a slightly different meaning depending on the animacy of the subject. With a human subject it normally signifies a verbal utterance (6.90 a), while with non-human subjects (who cannot speak) it more generally means ‘to show’ (6.90 b). Crucially, with non-human subjects the pronoun sich is obligatory (6.90 c).
| (6.90) | a. | Er äußert sein Bedauern über den Unfall. | |
| b. | Die Krankheit äußert sich durch das Fieber. | ||
| c. | * | Die Krankheit äußert den Fieber. |
[6.200] It appears to be that sich verschlafen is getting old-fashioned.
| (6.91) | Ach, Johanna, ich glaube, ich habe mich verschlafen.55 |
[6.201] Though similar to the previous ‘autocausative’ alternations, the alternation in (6.92 a,b) looks very much like self-inflicted reflexive reference, even the conjunction seems to be perfectly possible (6.92 c). It needs more investigation whether this alternation is really to be considered as a diathesis.
| (6.92) | a. | Er wirft die Kleider aufs Bett. |
| b. | Er wirft sich aufs Bett. | |
| c. | Die Frauen warfen sich und ihre Kinder vor mein Pferd und baten um Hilfe.56 |
[6.202] Attested Verbs
[6.203] Notes
[6.204] The verb konzentrieren ‘to concentrate, to focus’ also has an auf prepositional phrase, but it does not have a locative meaning. It still is a governed preposition though (6.93).
| (6.93) | a. | Ich konzentriere meine Energie auf das Spiel. |
| b. | Ich konzentriere mich auf das Spiel. | |
| c. | Ich konzentriere mich darauf, das Spiel zu gewinnen. |
| (6.94) | a. | Ich verweigere ihm die Einreise. |
| b. | Ich verweigere mich ihm. |
[6.205] Attested Verbs
[6.206] Reflexive antipassives with the preposition mit (6.95 a,b) show a non-governed prepositional phrase (6.95 c). Semantically, this diathesis changes an action from a one-sided perspective towards a reciprocal perspective. The resulting construction of this diathesis is reminiscent of the ‘real reciprocal’ verbs (see Section 6.3.3).
| (6.95) | a. | Ich treffe dich. | |
| b. | Ich treffe mich mit dir. | ||
| c. | * | Ich treffe mich damit, dass du krank bist. |
[6.207] Attested Verbs
[6.208] Examples
[6.209] Notes
[6.210] The verb befreunden ‘to become friends’ (6.96 a) seems to habe become acceptable with a bare accusative only recently in the context of social media (6.96 b). Semantically, the difference between a one-sided and two-sided perspective found with the other verbs in this class is not relevant here.
| (6.96) | a. | Ich befreunde mich mit ihm. |
| b. | Ich befreunde ihn. |
[6.211] The sich counterpart of the transitive beklagen ‘to lament’ (6.97 a,b) is somewhat alike to an intransitive action that has a reflexive pronoun attached. There is no semantic ‘self-inflicting’ reflexivity whatsoever in the expression, i.e. the complaining in (6.97 b) does not mean ‘I complain about myself’ (e.g. adding selbst is not possible); the complaint is still about Lärm ‘noise’. However, this object of the complaint is demoted from accusative (6.97 a), which cannot be dropped (6.97 c), to a prepositional phrase (6.97 b), which can be dropped (6.97 d). Note that without the prepositional phrase (6.97 d) the expression is indeed ambiguous between a real reflexive meaning (‘I complain about myself’) and a non-reflexive reading (‘I am complaining’). For a typological survey of such antipassive uses of reflexive markers, see Janic (2010). Wiemer and Nedjalkov (2007: 464-465) call such verbs ‘deaccusatives’ and consider them to be ‘extremely rare’ (which they are not). It is an open question why some verbs take a reflexive antipassive, while other take a simple antipassive without reflexive pronoun (cf Section 5.7.6). All prepositional phrases of the verbs in this section are governed prepositions (6.97 e).
| (6.97) | a. | Ich beklage den Lärm. | |
| b. | Ich beklage mich (*selbst) über den Lärm. | ||
| c. | * | Ich beklage. | |
| d. | Ich beklage mich. | ||
| e. | Ich beklage mich darüber, dass es so laut ist |
[6.212] Attested Verbs
[6.213] Examples
[6.214] Notes
[6.215] There are two different roles with entscheiden that both allow for an antipassive alternation with reflexive, both for the roles of the ‘problem’, alternating with bei (6.98 a) and for the ‘solution’, alternating with für (6.98 b).
| (6.98) | a. | Der Richter entschied den Streit. Der Richter entschied sich bei dem Streit (für eine Strafe). |
| b. | Ich entscheide die Reihenfolge. Ich entscheide mich für diese Reihenfolge. |
[6.216] The verb beklagen seems to have two different meanings: without sich it means ‘to lament’ while with sich it means ‘to complain’ (6.99 a). Likewise, the verb verschlucken shows a major semantic shift from ‘to swallow’ to ‘to choke’ (6.99 b). The verb vertiefen shows a minor semantic restriction, changing from ‘to engross’ to ‘to delve into’ (6.99 c).
| (6.99) | a. | Ich beklage den Tod. Ich beklage mich über den Lärm. |
| b. | Ich verschlucke die Pille. Ich verschlucke mich an der Pille. | |
| c. | Ich vertiefe meine Kenntnisse. Ich vertiefe mich in mein Buch. |
[6.217] Not attested.
[6.218] Some verbs expressing subordination allow for both a regular transitive construction (6.100 a) and a reflexive passive in which the former nominative turns into a dative (6.100 b).
| (6.100) | a. | Der Eroberer unterwarf den Volksstamm. |
| b. | Der Volksstamm unterwarf sich dem Eroberer. |
[6.219] Attested Verbs
[6.220] Examples
[6.221] Both the alternants in (6.101) are very old-fashioned.
| (6.101) | a. | Der Kranke erbarmt mich. (= Der Kranke erregte mein Mitleid.) |
| b. | Ich erbarmte mich des Kranken. (= Aus Mitleid kümmerte ich mich um den Kranken.) |
[6.222] Attested Verbs
[6.223] Examples
[6.224] There used to be a reflexive verb bewissen in Early New High German, but only the construction with the participle is still in use. The non-reflexive construction (6.102 a) is probably a later addition. As a synchronic diathesis this alternation is a rare example of a dative reflexive without accusative.
| (6.102) | a. | Das Problem ist mir bewusst. |
| b. | Ich bin mir keiner Schuld bewust. |
[6.225] Attested Verbs
[6.226] A verb like träumen ‘to dream’ has a governed preposition von (6.103 a,b). With a reflexive pronoun sich träumen a locative adverbial is needed, e.g a prepositional phrase with nach ‘to’ (6.103 c,d). The meaning of this construction is that by performing the verb (i.e. by dreaming) the locational description is achieved (i.e. being in New York). The location always appears to be describing a movement, with durch ‘through’ being the most productive.
| (6.103) | a. | Ich träume von New York. | |
| b. | Ich träume davon nach New York zu reisen. | ||
| c. | Ich träume mich nach New York. | ||
| d. | * | Ich träume mich. |
[6.227] Attested Verbs
[6.228] Examples
[6.229] Examples of this alternation are maybe better considered to be different meanings of the verbs. However, the semantics of both counterparts are close enough to be noted as a special kind of diathesis. For example, the verb annehmen means ‘to accept’ in (6.104 a), but ‘to take care of’ in (6.104 b).
| (6.104) | a. | Er nimmt das Problem an. (‘akzeptieren’) |
| b. | Er nimmt sich des Problemes an. (‘kümmern’) |
[6.230] Attested Verbs
[6.231] Examples
[7.1] Under the heading preverb I will subsume here two different constructions, known in German linguistics as Verbpräfixe ‘verb prefixes’ (7.1 a) and Verbpartikel ‘verb particles’ (7.1 b). These constructions have clearly different syntactic characteristics (see Section 7.2.1), but from the perspective of valency alternations they appear to function highly similar. For a discussion of term ‘preverb’ as a cover term for both constructions, see Booij & van Kemenade (2003).
| (7.1) | a. | Ich umfahre den Polizisten. |
| b. | Ich fahre den Polizisten um. |
[7.2] There is a massive literature on the German alternations induced by verb prefixes and verb particles, including complete monographs on individual preverbs (e.g. Felfe (2012) on the many different alternations with the particle an-). However, most of this literature focusses on the semantic difference between a bare verb and a verb with a preverb. Changes in valency are mostly discussed only as an aside. In contrast, in this chapter the meaning of the preverbs will only play a secondary role. The focus will be on the valency changing effect the prefixes have with some verbs (cf. Eroms 1980; Kim 1983; Günther 1987; Wunderlich 1987; Wunderlich 1997; Geist & Hole 2016 for similar approaches).
[7.3] The central generalisation that can be extracted from the numerous examples in this chapter is that the structural effect of a preverb diathesis is to produce a verb with an accusative argument. This generalisation does not hold without special definitional stipulations (e.g. accusative reflexive pronouns have to be included) and there are various counterexamples (e.g. diatheses resulting in dative arguments), but overall the generalisation seems to be exceptionally strong (see Section 7.2.2). In a very broad sense, preverb diatheses can be seen as some kind of counterpart to reflexive diatheses as discussed in the previous chapter. Reflexive diatheses generally reduce the valency, while preverb diatheses tend to increase the valency.
[7.4] As is customary in German grammar, I will restrict the notion of verb particles to morphemes that are related to prepositions. There are very many other morphemes that behave syntactically rather similar to particles, but which are related to adverbials/adjectives. These adverbial/adjectival preverbs are much more limited in the kind of diatheses that they induce, so I have decided to discuss them separately in the next chapter under the heading of adverbial alternations.
[7.5] There are ten local groups of diatheses that seem prominent enough to be given a German name. I propose the following names for these:
[7.6] The central morphosyntactic difference between verb prefixes and verb particles is their morphological bond to the lexical root. As implied by the name, verb prefixes like beˈ- are prefixed to the root and are never separated from it (7.2 a). In contrast, verb particles like ˈein- are in many constructions separated from the root (7.2 b). Additionally, verb prefixes are unstressed, while verb particles are stressed. To indicate whether a preverb is a prefix or particle, I will add a stress mark after (prefix) or before (particle).
| (7.2) | a. | Ich betrete den Saal. Ich habe den Saal betreten. Ich hoffe den Saal zu betreten. |
| b. | Ich trete die Tür ein. Ich habe die Tür eingetreten. Ich hoffe die Tür einzutreten. |
[7.7] The following elements can only be used as verb prefixes in German (see Los et al. 2016: 177; Pfeiffer 1993 for the diachronic origin):
[7.8] The prefix geˈ- only occurs in completely grammaticalised combinations, i.e. there are no verbs (anymore) with ge- in which the root is still transparently related to the ge- prefixed wordform (cf. Section 1.3.2). Pairs like bieten ‘to offer’ and gebieten ‘to order’ are thus simply treated as two completely separate lexemes here, and will consequently not occur among any of the diatheses (see Section 7.3). In contrast, the addition of the prefix missˈ- is always completely transparent and never results in a diathesis, e.g. achten ‘to respect’ and missachten ‘to disrespect’ (see Sections 7.4.1-7.4.2). That leaves the prefixes beˈ-, erˈ-, verˈ-, zerˈ-, entˈ-, and all of these occur frequently. They induce various diathesis as discussed throughout this chapter.
[7.9] The following prepositions can be used as preverbs:
[7.10] The two main groups of prepositional preverbs that are involved in diathesis show an intriguing semantic structure. Note that this semantic structure involves their prepositional meaning, not their function as preverbs:
[7.11] Used as a preverb, the meaning of the preposition can be highly variable. For example, the verb antanzen (cf. Felfe 2012: 1) has at least the following possible interpretations (7.3). In this chapter, I will only sporadically comment on these semantics details.
| (7.3) | a. | Der Rüpel hat mich angetanzt. (= anstoßen beim tanzen, cf. Section 7.8.10 with gegen) |
| b. | Das Brautpar hat den Ball angetanzt. (= durch tanzen den Ball anfangen, cf. Section 7.8.10 with auf) |
|
| c. | Der Junge kam angetanzt. (= tanzend hinbewegen, cf. Section 9.4.15) |
|
| d. | Ich habe mir ein kaputtes Knie angetanzt. (= durch tanzen etwas erreichen, cf Section 7.8.7) |
|
| e. | Ich haben gegen die Resignation angetanzt. (= sich gegen etwas stemmen) |
|
| f. | Er ist beim Chef angetanzt. (= wurde herbei zitiert) |
|
| g. | Bewegungsfolgen werden nur angetanzt und immer wieder abgebrochen.60 (= die Bewegung nicht vollständig ausführen) |
[7.12] The locational particles: da(r)-, her-, hin- are not further investigate here. They appear not to induce any diathesis when combined with a verb.
[7.13] The central generalisation that can be extracted from the numerous examples in this chapter is that the structural effect of a preverb diathesis (by verb prefixes or verb particles) is to produce a verb with an accusative argument. This idea is for example foreshadowed by Kim (1983) “Die be-Verben fordern immer eine E_akk außer bei der Funktionsgruppe der ‘Intensivierung’, deren Basisverben durch Präfigierung sich reflexivieren” (1983: 54). Various different diatheses have to be distinguished though.
[7.14] First, many verbs that do not have an accusative argument before the diathesis are turned into a verb with an accusative argument by the preverb diathesis:
| (7.4) | a. | Der Student schläft. Der Student verschläft den Vortrag. |
| b. | Ich steige auf den Berg. Ich besteige den Berg. |
|
| c. | Der Stuhl brennt. Ich verbrenne den Stuhl. |
[7.15] Second, verbs that already have an accusative argument show various different kinds of preverb diathesis. Yet, whatever happens, in almost all examples there is still an accusative argument present after the diathesis:
| (7.5) | a. | Ich kaufe das Haus von ihm. Er verkauft mir das Haus. |
| b. | Ich hänge die Bilder an die Wand. Ich behänge die Wand mit Bildern. |
|
| c. | Ich schütte das Wasser aus dem Eimer. Ich schütte den Eimer aus. |
[7.16] Third, some verbs appear to be counterexamples to the generalisation of accusative arguments with preverb diathesis because they do not have a full accusative argument after the application of the diathesis. However, they still have an accusative reflexive pronoun as a kind of formal substitute for the accusative. Note that functionally this reflexive pronoun is never coding a ‘self-inflicting’ reflexive construction, but only substitute for the ‘missing’ accusative argument.
| (7.6) | a. | Er schreibt einen Brief. Er verschreibt sich. |
| b. | Der Mitarbeiter arbeitet zu viel. Der Mitarbeiter überarbeite sich. |
|
| c. | Der Hund ist nach Hause gelaufen. Der nach Hause gelaufene Hund. Der Hund hat sich im Wald verlaufen. *Der im Wald verlaufene Hund. |
[7.17] Finally, there are few exceptions to the generalisation that preverb alternations always have an accusative argument:
| (7.7) | a. | Ich habe gestern ein Buch gekauft. Ich habe gestern eingekauft. |
| b. | Die Blume blüht. *Die geblühte Blume. Die Blume verblüht. Die verblühte Blume. |
|
| c. | Die Polizei jagte einen Verbrecher. Die Polizei jagte dem Verbrecher nach. |
[7.18] Preverbs typically are added to verbal roots. However, there are a few examples in which preverbs are added to non-verbal roots, constructing a verb in the process. For examples from adjectival roots like grün ‘green’ it is possible to derive a verb begrünen ‘to plant’ (7.8). This derivation typically has a causative function with the subject causing the object to become the adjectival predicate, see Section 7.6.2. However, in a few incidental cases, the semantics are slightly different, like with lustig ‘funny’ and belustigen ‘to amuse’ (7.9), see Section 7.8.2.
| (7.8) | a. | Der Balkon ist grün. |
| b. | Ich begrüne den Balkon. (= Ich verursache, dass der Balkon grün ist.) |
| (7.9) | a. | Der Clown ist lustig. |
| b. | Der Clown belustigt mich. |
[7.19] Preverbs are also sometimes used with a nominal root to derive a verb (see Section 7.6.3). This derivation likewise has a causative semantics in that the subject causes the object to have something, e.g. Salz ‘salt’ leads to versalzen, which means ‘to cause something to have too much salt’ (7.10). With the prefix ent- a negation is added, e.g. Waffe ‘weapon’ leads to entwaffnen, which means ‘to cause somebody to not have a weapen’ (7.11).
| (7.10) | a. | Die Suppe hat (zuviel) Salz. |
| b. | Ich versalze die Suppe. (= Ich verursache, dass die Suppe (zuviel) Salz hat.) |
| (7.11) | a. | Der Dieb hat eine Waffe. |
| b. | Ich entwaffne den Dieb. (= Ich verursache, dass der Dieb keine Waffe hat.) |
[7.20] Finally, there are few incidental examples of preverbs added to a prepositional root, but they will not further be discussed here (e.g. begegnen, erobern, erwidern).
[7.21] Verbs with preverbs frequently grammaticialise into a more specific meaning. For example, the verb graben ‘to dig’ and begraben ‘to bury’ are still semantically related and show a symmetrical applicative diathesis (see Section 7.9.4). However the meaning of the prefixed verb begraben has become semantically restricted to to the digging of a grave (7.12).
| (7.12) | a. | Ich grabe ein Loch (für meinen Hund). |
| b. | Ich begrabe meinen Hund (in einem Loch). |
[7.22] It is common that such a diachronic development leads to a pair of verbs that semantically are not related anymore. As a general rule, it seems to be the preverbal variant that shows more semantic drift (7.13).
| (7.13) | Preverbal verbs with existing roots, though no semantic relationship | |
| a. | gefallen, gehören, geraten | |
| b. | bekommen, benehmen, berichten, beschaffen, bestehen, bestimmen, bevorstehen, beweisen | |
| c. | entsprechen, entwischen | |
| d. | ereignen, ereilen, erfahren, erhalten, erpressen, errichten, ersparen, erstehen, ertragen, ertrinken, erwischen, erzählen, erziehen | |
| e. | zergehen, zerlassen, zersetzen | |
[7.23] In the extreme case, the original root of the preverbal verb does not (anymore) exist in German (7.14).
| (7.14) | Preverbal verbs with non-existing verbal roots in German | |
| a. | gebären, gebieten, gebühren, gedeihen, gelingen, genesen, geschehen, gestehen, gewähren, gewinnen, gewöhnen | |
| b. | beginnen. bescheren. beschäftigen. beteiligen. bezichtigen | |
| c. | erbarmen, ergattern, erinnern, erklimmen, erkunden, erlauben, erläutern, erledigen, erstatten, ersticken | |
[7.24] There are many preverb alternations without diathesis. I distinguish three different kinds here:
[7.25] It is very common for a prefixed verb not to show any change in valency. The most widespread kind is for nominative-accusative verb to not show a change in valency, like essen ‘to eat’ and aufessen ‘to eat completely’ (10.27), see Section 7.4.2.
| (7.15) | a. | Ich esse den Apfel. |
| b. | Ich esse den Apfel auf. |
[7.26] In contrast, it is rather uncommon for intransitive verbs to remain intransitive when prefixed (7.16), see Section 7.4.1.
| (7.16) | a. | Das Schifft sinkt auf hoher See. |
| b. | Das Schiff versinkt im Meer. |
[7.27] It is rather unusual for the prefixed version of intransitive verbs to not show any valency change (7.17 a,b), not even a difference between the usage of the attributive participles (7.17 c,d). It seems to be slightly more common for only the prefixed participle to be open for attributive usage (see Section 7.4.5).
| (7.17) | a. | Die Milch kocht. |
| b. | Die Milch kocht über. | |
| c. | Die gekochte Milch schmeckt nicht. | |
| d. | Die übergekochte Milch ist eine Sauerei. |
[7.28] The verb kochen also exhibits a bare anticausative diathesis (7.18 a,b), see Section 4.5.5. The preverb über- could thus also be interpreted as inducing an anticausative diathesis, when (7.18 c) is opposed to (7.18 a). However, because (7.18 b) is both structurally and semantically closer to (7.18 c) I have decided to take this as the preverb diathesis. Note that there exist verbs with preverb anticausative alternations (see Section 7.5.3).
| (7.18) | a. | Ich koche die Milch. |
| b. | Die Milch kocht. | |
| c. | Die Milch kocht über. |
[7.29] The preverb ˈmit- is typically used with verbs that do not allow an attributive participle, neither in without preverb, nor with preverb (but see Section 7.4.5 for a few exceptions with movement verbs).
| (7.19) | a. | Der Student hat an dem Projekt gearbeitet. | |
| b. | Der Student hat an dem Projekt mitgearbeitet. | ||
| c. | * | Der gearbeitete Student ist fertig. | |
| d. | * | Der mitgearbeitete Student ist fertig. |
[7.30] Attested Verbs
[7.31] Examples
[7.32] It is very common for transitive nominative-accusative verbs to remain transitive when prefixed (7.20 a). The participles of both verbs can be used attributively (7.20 b). The examples presented in this section are in no way intended to be a complete listing, but only serve as a illustration for this phenomenon. This group of preverb alternations without valency change appears to be very large.
| (7.20) | a. | Ich lagere die Kartoffeln im Keller. Ich verlagere die Kartoffeln in den Keller. |
| b. | Die gelagerten Kartoffeln. Die verlagerten Kartoffeln. |
[7.33] Attested Verbs
[7.34] Examples
[7.35] Adjectives are in many ways similar to intransitive verbs, basically being one-placed predicates. There are also various adjectives that remain intransitive when combined with a preverb, like kühl ‘cool’ and abkühlen ’to cool down (7.21 a). Similar to the intransitive verbs from the previous section, both adjectival predicates can be used as attributive adjective (7.21 b).
| (7.21) | a. | Das Wasser ist kühl. Das Wasser ist abgekühlt. |
| b. | Das kühle Wasser schmeckt. Das abgekühlte Wasser schmeckt. |
[7.36] Attested Verbs
[7.37] Examples
[7.38] Some adjectives that are turned into verbs through preverbs obligatorily need a reflexive pronoun (7.22).
| (7.22) | a. | Die späte Vorstellung. |
| b. | Die Vorstellung verspätet sich. |
[7.39] Attested Verbs
[7.40] Some intransitives show a peculiar phenomenon when prefixed: they are still intransitive but the subject becomes more patient-like in that the participle can be used attributively (one of the characteristics often discussed under the heading of the ‘unaccusative hypothesis’, see Section 9.2.6). For example, the verbs schlafen ‘to sleep’ (7.23 a) and einschlafen ‘to fall asleep’ (7.23 b) are both intransitive. However, only eingeschlafen can be used attributively (7.23 c,d), see Section 7.4.5.
| (7.23) | a. | Der Junge schläft. | |
| b. | Der Junge schläft ein. | ||
| c. | * | Der geschlafene Junge schnarcht. | |
| d. | Der eingeschlafene Junge schnarcht. |
[7.41] There is a small group of transitive nominative-accusative verbs that show the same effect with attributive participles. These verbs, like merken/bemerken ‘to become aware of’ (7.24 a,b), do not show a valency difference. Yet, there is a difference in that the participle of the prefixed bemerken can be used as attributive adjective, while the participle of the non-prefixed merken cannot (7.24 c,d), see Section 7.4.6.
| (7.24) | a. | Ich merke den Wind. | |
| b. | Ich bemerke den Fehler. | ||
| c. | * | Der gemerkte Wind war schlimm. | |
| d. | Der bemerkte Fehler war schlimm. |
[7.42] Many verbs describing natural processes remain intransitive when prefixed, like blühen ‘to blossom’ and verblühen ‘to wither’ (7.25 a,b). The participle of these verbs can be used attributively when prefixed (7.25 d), but not without prefix (7.25 c). Also note that the auxiliary in the perfekt changes between sein and haben for these verbs.
| (7.25) | a. | Die Blüme hat geblüht. | |
| b. | Die Blume ist verblüht. | ||
| c. | * | Die geblühte Blume ist immer noch schön. | |
| d. | Die verblühte Blume ist immer noch schön. |
[7.43] Attested Verbs
[7.44] Examples
[7.45] Some transitive verbs like ärgern and the preverbal variant verärgern ‘to irritate’ are almost identical in meaning (7.26 a,b). However, they show the same differentiation in attributive participle usage as the patientive intransitives in the previous section (7.26 c,d), though without a difference in perfect auxiliary (both use haben). There is a connected difference in the possiblity of the Zustandspassiv with sein, cf. Section 9.5.15. Note the somewhat older attested example of attributive geärgert in (7.26 e).
| (7.26) | a. | Die Verzögerung hat den Reisenden geärgert. | |
| b. | Die Verzögerung hat den Reisenden verärgert. | ||
| c. | * | Der geärgerte Reisende. *Der Reisende ist geärgert. | |
| d. | Der verärgerte Reisende. Der Reisende ist verärgert. | ||
| e. | Der geärgerte Schulkamerad schrieb: […]61 |
[7.46] Attested Verbs
[7.47] Examples
[7.48] Some verbs need an extra reflexive pronoun when they are prefixed, but the valency of the construction does not change. The reflexive pronoun is thus neither a self-inflicting replacement, nor a marker of the diathesis itself. The reflexive pronouns in these cases seem to be mostly empty, except for putting a slight emphasis on the agency of the nominative subject.
[7.49] The prefixed verb überarbeiten is transparently derived from the verb arbeiten ‘to work’, but in two semantically different directions. In one sense überarbeiten means ‘to revise’, i.e. ‘to work on something again’, which shows an applicative diathesis (7.27 a,b), see Section 7.8.10. In another sense überarbeiten means ‘to overwork’, i.e. ‘to work too hard’ (7.27 c,d). In this sense an obligatory, but ‘empty’, accusative reflexive pronoun is present.
| (7.27) | a. | Ich arbeite am Text. |
| b. | Ich überarbeite den Text. | |
| c. | Ich arbeite zu viel. | |
| d. | Ich überarbeite mich. |
[7.50] Attested Verbs
[7.51] Examples
[7.52] The difference between the verbs sehen and ansehen is very delicate, maybe best summarised by comparing it to the English verbs to see and to watch. The prefixed verb ansehen ‘to watch’ implies slightly more agency of the nominative subject. In German this difference is additionally marked by an obligatory dative reflexive pronouns (7.28 b).
| (7.28) | a. | Ich sehe das Haus. |
| b. | Ich sehe mir das Haus an. |
[7.53] Note that there is a second, highly similar, construction with ansehen and a non-reflexive dative argument (7.29 a). This dative has a completely different semantics, meaning something like ‘to notice’. This diathesis is further discussed under the heading of possessor raising in Section 7.8.9. Finally, ansehen can also simply mean ‘to look at’, in which sense there is no diathesis at all (7.29 b).
| (7.29) | a. | Ich sehe ihm die Müdigkeit an. |
| b. | Ich sehe dich an. |
[7.54] Attested Verbs
[7.55] Examples
[7.56] Keeping with the observation that preverb alternations tend to produce nominative/accusative constructions (see Section 7.2.2), preverb diatheses with subject demotion are exceedingly rare.
[7.57] Although there is a transparent relation between the transitive löschen ‘to extinguish’ (7.30 a) and the intransitive erlöschen ‘to go out’ (7.30 b), they show different inflectional patterns, illustrated below with different participles. Historically, the transitive (7.30 a) is a causative, but synchronically the prefixed form erlöschen is an anticausative.
| (7.30) | a. | Sie hat das Feuer gelöscht. |
| b. | Das Feuer ist erloschen. |
[7.58] Attested Verbs
[7.59] Some further anticausatives need an additional reflexive pronoun, like with fangen ‘to catch’ (7.31 a) and verfangen ‘to entangle oneself’ (7.31 b). Note that the intransitive verfangen seems to require a locative preposition (7.31 c).
| (7.31) | a. | Ich fange den Vogel mit einem Netz. | |
| b. | Der Vogel verfängt sich im Netz. | ||
| c. | ? | Der Vogel verfängt sich. |
[7.60] Attested Verbs
[7.61] Examples
[7.62] Lipka (1972: 93-94) calls this ‘Subjektvertauschung’, which he claims is ‘quite frequent in German.’ However, I do not know of any other examples of this diathesis except for the example given by Lipka, namely the diathesis between laufen + aus and auslaufen, both meaning approximately ‘to empty’ (7.32 a,b). It might be that Lipka intended to use this term for what is commonly called ‘anticausative’, but then his example was ill-chosen. Hundsnurscher (1968: 130ff.) discusses many examples that might be semantically similar, but do not show diathesis (e.g. tröpfeln/auströpfeln). For historical context, see Carlberg (1948) for more about the history of the terminology and the relation to metonymy. For the counterpart ‘Objektvertauschung’, see Section 7.7.12
| (7.32) | a. | Das Wasser ist aus der Flasche gelaufen. |
| b. | Die Flasche ist ausgelaufen. |
[7.63] Attested Verbs
| (7.33) | a. | Ich kümmere mich nicht um die Pflanze. |
| b. | Ich kümmere mich nicht darum, ob die Pflanze verkümmert. | |
| c. | Die Pflanze verkümmert. |
[7.64] Attested Verbs
[7.65] Promotion to subject is somewhat more widespread compared to subject demotion discussed in the previous section. Promotion to subject seems to occur preferably with the verb prefixes be-, ver-, er-, zer- and almost never with verb particles.
[7.66] By adding a prefix, some intransitive verbs like enden ‘to end’ obtain an extra causer argument (7.34).
| (7.34) | a. | Der Wettkampf endet. |
| b. | Ich beende den Wettkampf. |
[7.67] Attested Verbs
[7.68] Examples
[7.69] Notes
[7.70] With some of the verbs, the causer can occur as prepositional phrase with durch in the intransitive (7.35), similar to inverted passives, see Section 7.6.10.
| (7.35) | a. | Ich lebe durch den Arzt. |
| b. | Der Arzt belebt mich |
[7.71] Many adjectives can be turned into verbs by adding a prefix. The semantic effect is to turn a state, like grün sein ‘to be green (7.36 a) into a causative process begrünen ’to make green’ (7.36 b).
| (7.36) | a. | Der Balkon ist grün. |
| b. | Ich begrüne den Balkon. |
[7.72] The causer can with some verbs be expressed with a regular agentive durch or von prepositional phrase in the intransitive alternant. This sounds most natural with inanimate causers (7.37). See also Section 7.6.10 on inverted passives.
| (7.37) | a. | Er ist matt vom Sport. |
| b. | Der Sport ermattet ihn. |
[7.73] Comparatives like besser ‘better’ are considered as adjectives here (7.38).
| (7.38) | a. | Die Lebensbedingungen sind heutzutage besser. |
| b. | Ich verbessere die Lebensbedingungen. |
[7.74] With some verbs the causative also needs an umlaut (cf. Plank & Lahiri 2015), e.g. with kurz ‘short’ (7.39 a,b), or an umlaut is lost in the causative, e.g. with böse ‘angry’ (7.39 c,d); see also Section 4.6.4.
| (7.39) | a. | Die Frist ist kurz. |
| b. | Ich verkürze die Frist. | |
| c. | Er ist böse. | |
| d. | Die Bemerkung erbost ihn. |
[7.75] Not all verbs derived from adjectives have different argument structure with a prefix, e.g. erwachen ‘to wake up’ (7.40). There is a similar difference in meaning of the predicate without prefix (i.e. stative) ‘to be awake’ (7.40 a) and with the prefix (i.e. be caused) ‘to become awake’ (7.40 b), but there is no added causer (see Section 7.4.3).
| (7.40) | a. | Die Kinder sind wach. |
| b. | Die Kinder erwachen. |
[7.76] Note that there are also a few examples of prefixed adjectives in which an accusative object is added (see Section 7.8.2).
[7.77] Attested Verbs
[7.78] Examples
[7.79] Preverbs can also be added to nominal roots, deriving a causative verb in the process. For example, the verb beschädigen ‘to damage’ is derived from Schaden ‘the damage’ (7.41 a). The meaning of such verbs is that the object of the verb is caused to have the nominal property (i.e. ‘cause to have damage’). In a few examples the derivation also includes an Umlaut (like with beschädigen). Nominal roots are most frequently attested with verb prefixes, though incidental verb particles are also attested (7.41 b).
| (7.41) | a. | Ich beschädige den Zaun. (= Ich verursache, dass der Zaun Schaden hat.) |
| b. | Der Beambte bürgert den Flüchtlich ein. (= Der Beambte verursacht, dass der Flüchtling zum Bürger wird.) |
[7.80] The prefix entˈ- includes in inherent negation, leading to verbs that express that the object does not have the nominal preperty, like entwaffnen ’to disarm, i.e. to cause not to have arms] (7.42 b). The prefix erˈ- seems to have a slightly different role-structure in that there is an experiencer involved, either the subject, like in erbeuten (7.42 b), or the object, like in erdolchen (7.42 b).
| (7.42) | a. | Der Polizist entwaffnet den Dieb. (= Der Polizist verursacht, dass der Dieb keine Waffe hat.) |
| b. | Die Piraten erbeuteten den Schatz. (= Die Piraten verursachten, dass sie den Schatz haben.) |
|
| c. | Die Piraten erdolchen den Kapitän. (= Die Piraten verursachen, dass der Dolch in den Kapitän steckt.) |
[7.81] Attested Verbs
[7.82] Some causative alternations have a goverend preposition, like with haften ‘to be liable for’ (7.43 a). The preposition becomes optional in the causative counterpart (7.43 b).
| (7.43) | a. | Eltern haften für ihre Kinder. |
| b. | Die Polizisten verhaften die Eltern (für ihre Taten). |
[7.83] Attested Verbs
[7.84] Examples
[7.85] Attested Verbs
[7.86] Examples
[7.87] In the special case of the causative diathesis between gleichen ‘to resemble’ (7.44 a) and the prefixed form vergleichen ‘to compare’, the original dative argument turns into a governed preposition.
| (7.44) | a. | Ich gleiche einem Affen. |
| b. | Er vergleicht mich mit einem Affen |
[7.88] Attested Verbs
[7.89] Different from most causatives, the original nominative of mieten ‘to rent’ (7.45 a) turns into a dative with the prefixed form vermieten ‘to lend’ (7.45 b). The more typical diathesis is a causative in which the original nominative turns into an accusative. However, with these verbs there is already an accusative present before the diathesis.
| (7.45) | a. | Ich miete die Wohnung (von ihm). |
| b. | Er vermietet mir die Wohnung. |
[7.90] Attested Verbs
[7.91] Examples
[7.92] Different from most causatives, the original nominative of freuen ‘to enjoy’ (7.46 a) turns into a governed preposition with the prefixed form erfreuen ‘to delight somebody’ (7.46 b). The more typical diathesis is a causative in which the original nominative turns into an accusative. However, with this verb there is already an accusative present before the diathesis.
| (7.46) | a. | Das Geschenk freut mich. |
| b. | Er erfreut mich mit einem Geschenk. |
[7.93] Attested Verbs
[7.94] The relation between erben ‘inherit’ and enterben ‘disenherit’ is peculiar, because the accusative argument Schreibtisch of erben in (7.47 a) cannot be expressed in any way with enterben (7.47 b).
| (7.47) | a. | Ich erbe den Schreibtisch von meinem Vater. |
| b. | Mein Vater enterbt mich. |
[7.95] Attested Verbs
[7.96] These diatheses can be seen as passives ‘in reverse’. On first notice everything just looks like a passive: (i) the accusative argument of the (prefixed) transitive verb turns into a nominative of the (non-prefixed) intransitive verb and (ii) the causer/agent of the (prefixed) transitive verb is expressed as a (governed) prepositional phrase with the (non-prefixed) intransitive verb. However, the direction of an alternation is by definition from the unmarked (non-prefixed) to the marked (prefixed) verb. So, these diatheses are ‘inverted’ passives. Although it would make sense to call such diatheses ‘antipassives’, this term is already taken by another kind of diatheses.
[7.97] The causer of erstaunen ‘to amaze’ is expressed as a governed preposition über with the non-prefixed verb staunen ‘to be amazed’.
| (7.48) | a. | Ich staune über deine Arbeit. |
| b. | Ich staune darüber, dass du schon fertig bist. | |
| c. | Deine Arbeit erstaunt mich. |
[7.98] Attested Verbs
[7.99] Examples
[7.100] With the addition of the prefix, these verbs lose their reflexive pronoun (7.49). So, there is both a ‘reversed’ passive and a ‘reversed’ reflexive marking in these diatheses. Note that the causer of the transitive is expressed as a governed preposition (7.49 b).
| (7.49) | a. | Ich schäme mich für meine Taten. |
| b. | Ich schäme mich dafür, dass ich das gemacht habe. | |
| c. | Meine Taten beschämen mich |
[7.101] The second examples of this diathesis with wundern ’to wonder (7.50) is less clear, because this verb has also a reflexive passive alternation, see Section 6.5.8. Comparing (7.50 a,c) shows an alternation of an inverted passive with reflexive loss. But comparing (7.50 b,c) shows an alternation without diathesis.
| (7.50) | a. | Ich wundere mich über dein Verhalten. |
| b. | Dein Verhalten wundert mich. | |
| c. | Dein Verhalten verwundert mich |
[7.102] Attested Verbs
[7.103] These verbs are counterexamples to the predominant pattern that preverbs induce an accusative argument (see Section 7.2.2). In contrast, in the diathesis from kaufen ‘to buy’ (7.51 a) to einkaufen ‘to shop’ (7.51 b) an accusative arguemnt is dropped.
| (7.51) | a. | Ich habe gestern ein Buch gekauft. |
| b. | Ich habe gestern eingekauft. |
[7.104] Attested Verbs
[7.105] Examples
| (7.52) | a. | Ich helfe dir. |
| b. | Ich behelfe mich. |
[7.106] Attested Verbs
[7.107] Some preverbs induce the loss of an accusative with a coincidental obligatory reflexive pronoun, like the diathesis between wählen ‘to choose’ and sich verwählen ‘to misdial’ (7.53). The examples of this diathesis all appear to relate to using your body in a certain way, which is reminiscent of the endoreflexive diathesis (see Section 6.7.1).
| (7.53) | a. | Er wählt die falsche Nummer. |
| b. | Er verwählt sich. |
[7.108] Attested Verbs
[7.109] Examples
[7.110] With some verbs with dative and accusative roles, adding a preverb results in the omission of the dative. The dative can be retained as a prepositional phrase, but is typically omitted.
| (7.54) | a. | Ich schenke dem Kindergarten meine Bücher. |
| b. | Ich verschenke meine Bücher (an den Kindergarten). |
[7.111] Attested Verbs
[7.112] Examples
| (7.55) | a. | Ich danke dir. |
| b. | Ich bedanke mich bei dir. |
[7.113] Attested Verbs
| (7.56) | a. | Ich kalkuliere die Miete. |
| b. | Ich verkalkuliere mich bei der Miete. |
[7.114] Attested Verbs
[7.115] Examples
| (7.57) | a. | Ich lehre dich die Regeln. |
| b. | Ich belehre dich über die Regeln. |
[7.116] Attested Verbs
[7.117] The antipassive typically results in a mit prepositional phrase.
| (7.58) | a. | Ich schenke dir ein Buch. |
| b. | Ich beschenke dich mit einem Buch. |
[7.118] Attested Verbs
[7.119] Exmples
[7.120] The unprefixed steigen necessarily needs a location describing the endpoint (result) of the action (7.59 a). This location cannot be left out (7.59 b) and the participle cannot be used adnominally without the location (7.59 c,d). In contrast, with the prefixed aussteigen both options are possible (7.60).
| (7.59) | a. | Der Man steigt aus dem Auto. | |
| b. | * | Der Mann steigt. | |
| c. | Der aus dem Auto gestiegene Mann rutscht aus. | ||
| d. | * | Der gestiegene Mann rutscht aus. |
| (7.60) | a. | Der Mann steigt aus dem Auto aus. |
| b. | Der Mann steigt aus. | |
| c. | Der aus dem Auto ausgestiege Mann rutscht aus. | |
| d. | Der ausgestiegene Mann rutscht aus. |
[7.121] Attested Verbs
[7.122] Examples
[7.123] This diathesis is similar to the previous diathesis (see Section 7.7.9) with the additional characteristics that the prefixed verbs like verlaufen ‘to get lost’ also needs a reflexive pronoun (7.62).
| (7.61) | a. | Der Hund ist nach Hause gelaufen. | |
| b. | * | Der Hund ist gelaufen. | |
| c. | Der nach Hause gelaufene Hund hat hunger. | ||
| d. | * | Der gelaufene Hund hat hunger. |
| (7.62) | a. | Der Hund hat sich im Wald verlaufen. |
| b. | Der Hund hat sich verlaufen. | |
| c. | Der im Wald verlaufene Hund hat hunger. | |
| d. | Der verlaufene hund hat hunger. |
[7.124] Attested Verbs
[7.125] Examples
[7.126] Verbs of caused location (see Section 5.5.10) like stecken ‘to put into’ (7.63 a) cannot be used without the locative preposition (7.63 b). In contrast, with the prefix ver- the verb verstecken ‘to hide’ can be used both with and without the location (7.63 c,d).
| (7.63) | a. | Ich stecke das Geschenk in den Schrank. | |
| b. | * | Ich stecke das Geschenk. | |
| c. | Ich verstecke das Geschenk in dem Schrank. | ||
| d. | Ich verstecke das Geschenk. |
[7.127] The diathesis is quite widespread stacked on top of a resultative diathesis (7.64).
| (7.64) | a. | Der Wind weht hart. | |
| b. | Der Wind weht die Blätter von den Dächern. | ||
| c. | * | Der Wind weht die Blätter. | |
| d. | Der Wind verweht die Blätter. |
[7.128] Attested Verbs
[7.129] Examples
[7.130] This diathesis is the reversal of the “action result” diathesis (see Section 5.8.7). The result of a verb like pressen ‘to squeeze’ is Saft ‘juice’ (7.65 a). With a preverb auspressen ‘to squeeze’ drops this accusative result and promotes the origin of the result Zitrone ‘citron’ (7.65 b).
| (7.65) | a. | Ich presse den Saft aus der Zitrone. |
| b. | Ich presse die Zitrone aus. |
[7.131] Lipka (1972: 93, 173) calls this diathesis ‘Objektvertauschung’ and McIntyre (2001: 275-277) ‘landmark flexibility’. For historical context on this diathesis, see Carlberg (Carlberg 1948) and Hundsnurscher (1968: 127). Lipka opposes this diathesis to ‘Subjektvertauschung’, which is discussed in Section 7.5.3.
[7.132] Attested Verbs
[7.133] Examples
[7.134] A relatively widespread effect of the addition of preverb is that an accusative object is added like with the diathesis from zaubern ‘to perform magic’ to verzaubern ‘to enchant’ (7.66).
| (7.66) | a. | Sie zaubert. |
| b. | Sie verzaubert mich. |
[7.135] Attested Verbs
[7.136] Examples
[7.137] A few incidental adjectives lead to a special diathesis when they are derived into a verb by the addition of a preverb. Typically, such derived adjectives lead to causative semantics (see Section 7.6.2). However, with lustig ‘funny’ the derived verb belustigen ‘to amuse’ adds an accusative object (7.67).
| (7.67) | a. | Der Clown ist lustig. |
| b. | Der Clown belustigt mich. |
[7.138] Attested Verbs
[7.139] Examples
[7.140] The verb büßen ‘to pay for something’ needs a governed preposition, while blicken ‘to gaze’ needs a locative preposition. These prepositional phrases are optionally retained when the verbs are prefixed and obtain an additional accusative argument in the process.
| (7.68) | a. | Sie büßt für ihre Tat. |
| b. | Sie verbüßt ihre Strafe für die Tat. |
[7.141] Attested Verbs
[7.142] Examples
| (7.69) | a. | Sie vertraut mir. |
| b. | Sie vertraut mir ein Geheimnis an. |
[7.143] Attested Verbs
| (7.70) | a. | Ich gehe (nach Hause). |
| b. | Ich entgehe dem Urteil. |
[7.144] Attested Verbs
[7.145] Examples
| (7.71) | a. | Ich lese ein Buch. |
| b. | Ich lese dir ein Buch vor. |
[7.146] Attested Verbs
[7.147] Examples
[7.148] Some intransitive verbs like tanzen ‘to dance’ (7.72 a) allow for a resultative diathesis antanzen ‘to achieve something through dancing’ (7.72 b). The result of the dancing is expressed in the new accusative argument. A special characteristic of this diathesis is that a dative reflexive pronoun is obligatorily present (see also Wunderlich 1997: 105-106).
| (7.72) | a. | Ich habe gestern viel getanzt. |
| b. | Ich habe mir gestern einen Muskelkater angetanzt. |
[7.149] Various of the intransitive verbs that allow for this resultative diathesis, like tanzen (7.72) but also laufen ‘to run’ (7.73 a), allow for an accusative addition as well (7.73 b), see Section 4.8.1. The accusative argument from that diathesis can be retained through an antipassive diathesis in the form of a prepositional phrase (7.73 c).
| (7.73) | a. | Ich habe gestern viel gelaufen. |
| b. | Ich habe gestern einen Marathon gelaufen. | |
| c. | Ich habe mir eine Medaille beim Marathon erlaufen. |
[7.150] With the prefix ver- the meaning of this diathesis is a negative resultative (7.74).
| (7.74) | a. | Ich bitte um ein besseres Verhalten. |
| b. | Ich verbitte mir dein Verhalten. |
[7.151] Attested Verbs
[7.152] Examples
[7.153] Notes
[7.154] A verb like schreiben allows for dative and accusative arguments (7.75 a), but in this diathesis it is the intransitive occupational usage (7.75 b) that is the basis for the resultative construction (7.75 c).
| (7.75) | a. | Ich schreibe dir einen Brief. |
| b. | Ich schreibe (als Beruf). | |
| c. | Ich erschreibe mir ein großes Publikum. |
| (7.76) | a. | Ich schließe den Safe. |
| b. | Ich schließe den Schmuck (in den Safe) ein. |
[7.155] Attested Verbs
[7.156] The verb ansehen has various different senses, as summarised in Section 7.4.8. One of the senses can approximately be translated into English as ‘to notice’ (7.77). In this sense of ansehen, the possessor of the accusative argument is obligatorily expressed as a dative.
| (7.77) | a. | Ich sehe seine Müdigkeit. |
| b. | Ich sehe ihm die Müdigkeit an. |
[7.157] Attested Verbs
[7.158] Examples
[7.159] A widespread diathesis induced by a preverb is the change of a prepositional phrase into an accusative. An example is the alternation between grenzen an ‘to border on’ and begrenzen ‘to limit’ (7.78), see e.g. Eroms (Eroms 1980, Class 1b/III/IV; Kim 1983: §1.1). The different subcategories below are organised by the prepositions that alternate with the accusatives.
| (7.78) | a. | Die Mauer grenzt an den Garten. |
| b. | Die Mauer begrenzt den Garten |
[7.160] Note that the prepositions über, unter, um, durch appear to have a special status. These prepositions always alternate with exactly the same preverbs. Note that these prepositions are exactly those that can function both as verbal prefix and as (separable) verbal particle (see Section 7.2.1).
| (7.79) | a. | Der Efeu wuchern an der Mauer. |
| b. | Der Efeu bewuchert die Mauer. |
[7.161] Attested Verbs
[7.162] Examples
| (7.80) | a. | Ich steige auf den Berg. |
| b. | Ich besteige den Berg. |
[7.163] Attested Verbs
[7.164] Examples
[7.165] The preposition durch only alternates with the preverb durch-, possibly either as a verb prefix (7.81 a) or a verb particle (7.81 b).
| (7.81) | a. | Der Fluß fließt durch das Tal. Der Fluß durchfließt das Tal. |
| b. | Ich schlage durch die Scheibe. Ich schlage die Scheibe durch. |
[7.166] Attested Verbs
[7.167] Examples
[7.168] Notes
[7.169] There are various still transparent derivations in which their is a rather strong semantic difference (7.82).
| (7.82) | a. | Ich boxe (mit der Kommision) über den Vorschlag. Ich boxe den Vorschlag (in der Kommision) durch. |
| b. | Ich drücke auf den Knopf. Ich drücke den Plan durch. |
|
| c. | Ich stehe in dem Garten während des Rückschlages. Ich stehe einen Rückschlag durch. |
| (7.83) | a. | Ich fahre gegen den Stein. |
| b. | Ich fahre den Stein um. |
[7.170] Attested Verbs
[7.171] Examples
| (7.84) | a. | Ich bohre in dem Brett. |
| b. | Ich zerbohre das Brett. |
[7.172] Attested Verbs
[7.173] Examples
| (7.85) | a. | Ich rede mit dir. |
| b. | Ich überrede dich. |
[7.174] Attested Verbs
[7.175] Examples
| (7.86) | a. | Ich reiche nach der Flasche. |
| b. | Ich erreiche die Flasche nicht. |
[7.176] Attested Verbs
[7.177] Examples
| (7.87) | a. | Ich schreite über die Schwelle. |
| b. | Ich überschreite die Schwelle. |
[7.178] Attested Verbs
[7.179] Examples
| (7.88) | a. | Ich fahre um den Polizisten. |
| b. | Ich umfahre den Polizisten. |
[7.180] Attested Verbs
[7.181] Examples
| (7.89) | a. | Das Wasser spült unter der Straße. |
| b. | Das Wasser unterspült die Straße. |
[7.182] Attested Verbs
| (7.90) | a. | Ich lüge zu dir. |
| b. | Ich belüge dich. |
[7.183] Attested Verbs
[7.184] Examples
[7.185] A preverb applicative diathesis turns a prepositional phrase into an accusative arguement. This is a widespread diathesis (see Section 7.8.10). In this section a few special verbs are listed in which the prepositional phrase is a governed preposition (see Section 5.2 on the definition of governed prepositions). For example, the preposition an used with the verb arbeiten ‘to work’ is a governed preposition (7.91 a,b). This role is turned into an accusative with the verb überarbeiten ‘to revise’ (7.91 c). This diathesis appears not to be very common, and it might not be very useful to separate this group from the previous non-governed prepositions.
| (7.91) | a. | Ich arbeite an dem Text. |
| b. | Ich arbeite daran den Text rechtzeitig fertig zu schreiben. | |
| c. | Ich überarbeite den Text. |
[7.186] Attested Verbs
[7.187] Examples
[7.188] Attested Verbs
[7.189] Examples
| (7.92) | a. | Ich kämpfe gegen dem Unrecht. |
| b. | Ich bekämpfe das Unrecht. |
[7.190] Attested Verbs
| (7.93) | a. | Ich rechne mit einem Verlust. |
| b. | Ich rechne den Verlust ein. |
[7.191] Attested Verbs
| (7.94) | a. | Ich strebe nach einem hohen Amt. |
| b. | Ich bestrebe ein hohes Amt. |
[7.192] Attested Verbs
| (7.95) | a. | Ich klage über den Lärm. |
| b. | Ich beklage den Lärm |
[7.193] Attested Verbs
[7.194] Examples
| (7.96) | a. | Ich verspiele mein Haus. |
| b. | Ich spiele um mein Haus. |
[7.195] Attested Verbs
[7.196] The dative can probably always be interpreted as a benefactor, so it might be interpreted as a kind of für benefactive dative (7.97 a,b), see Section 5.8.9. The reflexive marking might not be necessary (7.97 c,d), then this diathesis would be a transparent stack of applicative +> benefactive dative +> self-inflicting reflexive.
| (7.97) | a. | Ich bettele um ein Stück Brot (für mich). | |
| b. | Ich erbettele mir ein Stück Brot. | ||
| c. | ? | Ich erbettele ein Stück Brot. | |
| d. | ? | Ich erbettele dir ein Stück Brot. |
[7.197] Attested Verbs
[7.198] Examples
| (7.98) | a. | Er droht mir mit Entlassung. |
| b. | Er droht mir die Entlassung an. |
[7.199] Attested Verbs
[7.200] Examples
| (7.99) | a. | Ich schweige zu dir über meinen Besuch. |
| b. | Ich verschweige dir meinen Besuch. |
[7.201] Attested Verbs
[7.202] Examples
| (7.100) | a. | Ich dränge dich zu einem Abo. |
| b. | Ich dränge dir ein Abo auf. |
[7.203] Attested Verbs
[7.204] Examples
[7.205] Some applicatives turn a prepositional phrase into a dative. For example, stammen ‘to descent from’ is used with a preposition aus (7.101 a). This role is turned into a dative with the preverb entstammen ‘to be descended from’. Note that these are never governed prepositions (for ent-, see also Eisenberg 2013: 252).
| (7.101) | a. | Ich stamme aus einem Adelsgeschlecht. |
| b. | Ich entstamme einem Adelsgeschlecht. |
[7.206] Atteste Verbs
[7.207] Examples
[7.208] Attested Verbs
[7.209] Examples
[7.210] The alternation between wundern ‘to amaze’ (7.102 a) and bewundern ‘to be in awe’ (7.102 b) reverses the nominative and accusative arguments. Note that the verb wunder also allows for a reflexive conversive diathesis (7.102 c), see Section 6.5.8, but this construction cannot function as a intermediate step in this diathesis.
| (7.102) | a. | Dein Verhalten wundert mich. |
| b. | Ich bewundere dein Verhalten. | |
| c. | Ich wunder mich über dein Verhalten. |
[7.211] Attested Verbs
[7.212] The alternation between strahlen ‘to shine’ (7.103 a) and erstrahlen ‘to gleam’ (7.103 b) involves a reversal of nominative and locational arguments.
| (7.103) | a. | Die Sonne strahlt auf das Haus. |
| b. | Das Haus erstrahlt in der Sonne. |
[7.213] Attested Verbs
[7.214] Examples
[7.215] An applicative diathesis changes a prepositional phrase into an accusative. Such diatheses are frequently attested with preverbs (see Section 7.8.10). When there is already an accusative present, like with schreiben (7.104 a), then the original accusative is demoted to a prepositional phrase. This combination of an applicative with an antipassive is called full applicative. The most widespread antipassive demotion uses the preposition mit, like with beschreiben (7.104 b). Less frequent are in antipassives (see Section 7.9.4) and von antipassives (see Section 7.9.5). Other prepositions are not attested for the antipassive part of a full applicative. There exist a more extensive variation in the prepositions that take part in the applicative part of the diathesis, e.g. auf in (7.104).
| (7.104) | a. | Ich schreibe Buchstaben auf das Papier. |
| b. | Ich beschreibe das Papier mit Buchstaben. |
| (7.105) | a. | Ich hänge die Bilder an die Wand. |
| b. | Ich behänge die Wand mit Bildern. |
[7.216] Attested Verbs
[7.217] Examples
| (7.106) | a. | Ich schreibe Buchstaben auf das Papier. |
| b. | Ich beschreibe das Papier mit Buchstaben. |
[7.218] Attested Verbs
[7.219] Examples
| (7.107) | a. | Ich singe ein Lied für dich. |
| b. | Ich besinge dich mit einem Lied. |
[7.220] Attested Verbs
[7.221] Examples
| (7.108) | a. | Ich pflanze Tulpen in das Beet. |
| b. | Ich bepflanze das Beet mit Tulpen. |
[7.222] Attested Verbs
[7.223] Examples
[7.224] See also Eisenberg (2013: 245-246).
| (7.109) | a. | Ich streue Zucker über den Kuchen. |
| b. | Ich überstreue den Kuchen mit Zucker. |
[7.225] Attested Verbs
[7.226] Examples
| (7.110) | a. | Ich binde einen Verband um die Wunde. |
| b. | Ich verbinde die Wunde mit einem Verband. |
[7.227] Attested Verbs
[7.228] Examples
[7.229] A second pattern of applicative + antipassive combinations uses an in antipassive. For example, the diathesis between wickeln ‘to wrap’ and einwickeln ‘to wrap around’ (7.111) changes the original accusative Tuch ‘cloth’ into an prepositional phrase with in.
| (7.111) | a. | Ich wickle das Tuch um den Arm. |
| b. | Ich wickle den Arm in dem Tuch ein. |
[7.230] Attested Verbs
[7.231] Examples
[7.232] A third less frequent applicatie + antipassive diathesis uses a von antipassive.
| (7.112) | a. | Er zwingt ihn zu einem Geständnis. |
| b. | Er erzwingt ein Geständnis von ihm. |
[7.233] Attested Verbs
[7.234] erˈ : bitten, fragen, pressen, zwingen
[7.235] Examples
[7.236] Counterexample to generalisation that non-self-inflicting reflexive pronouns are always accusative!
| (7.113) | a. | Ich bitte dich um einen Kommentar. |
| b. | Ich verbitte mir einen Kommentar von dir. |
[7.237] Attested Verbs
| (7.114) | a. | Ich folge dem Auto. |
| b. | Ich verfolge das Auto. |
[7.238] Attested Verbs
[7.239] Examples
| (7.115) | a. | Ich raube dir das Buch. |
| b. | Ich beraube dich des Buches. |
[7.240] Attested Verbs
[8.1] It might come as a surprise that adverbials play a role in valency and diathesis. However, on closer inspection it quickly becomes clear that there are various verbs that obligatorily need an adverbial complement, like sich verhalten ‘to behave’ (8.1), which shows that adverbials have to be considered when determining the valency of verbs.
| (8.1) | a. | Ich verhalte mich tapfer. | |
| b. | * | Ich verhalte mich. |
[8.2] Yet, adverbials cast an even wider net as there are various diatheses that involve obligatory adverbials, like drops (8.2 a), see Section 8.5.1, anticausatives (8.2 b), see Section 8.5.2, applicatives (8.2 c), see Section 8.8.2 and antipassives (8.2 d), see Section 8.7.7.
| (8.2) | a. | Ich lebe hier. Hier lebt es sich gut. |
| b. | Ich fahre den Lastwagen. Der Lastwagen fährt sich gut. |
|
| c. | Ich fische in den Teich. Ich habe den Teich leergefischt. |
|
| d. | Ich sehe das Gemälde. Ich sehe mich satt an dem Gemälde. |
[8.3] The adverbial construction discussed in this chapter include two clearly different kind of adverbials, namely depictive secondary predicates (8.3 a) and resultative adverbs (8.3 b). The syntactic structures and the valency alternations in which they appear turn out to be rather different, possibly warranting two different chapters. However, the current combination of these superficially very similar constructions allows me to sharpen the distinction and investigate similarities and differences between the two.
| (8.3) | a. | Ich habe meine Hose schnell gekauft. |
| b. | Ich habe den Laden leer gekauft. |
[8.4] Depictive secondary predicates are typically manner adverbials. They appear in valency-reducing diatheses, typically resulting in intransitive constructions as a result. This behavior draws obvious parallels with reflexive diatheses. However, it remain unclear to me whether there is a deeper connection between reflexive and adverbial diatheses or whether this parallel is a superficial side effect of some other syntactic properties. Depictive secondary predicates can also be expressed by participles, so there is a close connection to diatheses with light-verb and participles (see Section 9.2.4).
[8.5] Resultative adverbs arguably form a new verb together with the main predicate, i.e. leer and kaufen form a new verb leerkaufen in which the first part leer- is separable, just like with prepositional preverbs (‘Partikelverben’ in German grammar, see Section 7.2.1). Similar to the generalisation with preverbs (see Section 7.2.2), diatheses with resultative secondary predicates almost always lead to transitive constructions with a nominative and an accusative argument (or alternatively an accusative reflexive). This parallellism reinforces the impression that resultative adverbs should probably better be considered together with preverbs as discussed in the previous chapter.
[8.6] There are six diatheses that seem prominent enough to be given a German name. I propose the following names for these:
[8.7] Adverbials are defined here strictly syntactically as a word or phrase that modifies the main predicate of a sentence. When such an adverbial consists of a single word that cannot be used in other syntactic functions, then such a word is called an adverb. There exist an arguably rather small class of such purely adverbial words in German with restricted semantic possibilities, namely local, e.g. hier, oben, dort (8.4 a), temporal, e.g. gestern, später, immer (8.4 b), causal, e.g. deshalb, dennoch, folglich (8.4 c) and modal, e.g. ebenfalls, fast, ganz (8.4 d).
| (8.4) | a. | Das Flugzeug ist dort gelandet. |
| b. | Das Flugzeug ist gestern gelandet. | |
| c. | Deshalb ist das Flugzeug gelandet. | |
| d. | Das Flugzeug ist ebenfalls gelandet. |
[8.8] There are some special context in which some of these adverbs can be used to modify noun phrases, but apparently only post-nominal (8.5 a,b), a position that cannot be taken by adjectives (8.5 c), but seems to be related to the position of modifying prepositional phrases (8.5 d).
| (8.5) | a. | Das Flugzeug dort finde ich schöner. | |
| b. | Das Flugzeug gestern fand ich schöner. | ||
| c. | * | Das Flugzeug große fand ich schöner. | |
| d. | Das Flugzeug mit den großen Fenster finde ich schöner. |
[8.9] Except for adverbs there are many other kinds of expressions that can fill the syntactic role of adverbial, like prepositional phrases (8.6 a), quantified objects (8.6 b), see Section 4.3.9}, or adverbial clauses (8.6 c). Also negation (8.6 d) and comparison phrases (8.6 e) are syntactically highly similar to adverbials. For example, various verbs that obligatorily need an adverbial alternatively allow a negation or comparison phrase to fill the necessary adverbial slot (see e.g. Section 8.3.1).
| (8.6) | a. | Das Flugzeug ist auf der Wiese gelandet. |
| b. | Das Flugzeug ist jeden Tag gelandet. | |
| c. | Das Flugzeug ist gelandet, weil der Tank leer war. | |
| d. | Das Flugzeug ist nicht gelandet. | |
| e. | Das Flugzeug ist wie eine Feder gelandet. |
[8.10] Adjectives (and adjectival verbforms like participles, see Section 9.2.4) are also frequently used in adverbial function as discussed in the next sections.
[8.11] Given the right context, all German adjectives like klein can be used as depictive secondary predicates, i.e. they can be used syntactically both as adjectives (8.7 a) and as adverbs (8.7 b).
| (8.7) | a. | Das kleine Kind ist geboren. |
| b. | Das Kind ist klein geboren. |
[8.12] Depending on the context and their placement inside the sentence, such depictive adjectival adverbs can describe some characteristic to different constituents in the sentence, like to an accusative object (9.131 a), a nominative subject (8.8 b) or a predicate (8.8 c).
| (8.8) | a. | Ich habe meine Hose eng gekauft. |
| b. | Ich habe meine Hose müde gekauft. | |
| c. | Ich habe meine Hose schnell gekauft. |
[8.13] Adverbs, i.e. single-word adverbials that cannot function as adjectives, only allow for the modification of the predicate. For example, a pure adverb like gestern cannot describe any characteristic of the nominative subject or accusative object. For example, in (8.9). the adverb gestern can only refer to the action kaufen, not to the subject ich or the object Hose.
| (8.9) | Ich habe meine Hose gestern gekauft. |
[8.14] There is a different resultative construction with adjectival adverbs that superficially looks highly similar to the previous depictive examples, but it turns out to be a radically different construction. The adjectival adverb leer ‘empty’ in (8.10 a) can be interpreted, like in the previous examples, as a depictive predicate with the meaning ‘I have bought the store as it was empty’ (8.10 b). Alternatively, it can be interpreted resultatively with the meaning ‘I have bought everything that was in the store, with the result that the store was empty afterwards’ (8.10 c).
| (8.10) | a. | Ich habe den Laden leer gekauft. |
| b. | Ich habe den Laden, der ganz leer war, gekauft. | |
| c. | Ich habe Artikel im Laden gekauft, bis der Laden leer war. |
[8.15] There are various differences between the depictive (8.10 b) and resultative (8.10 c) interpretation. First, the accusative object in the resultative interpretation (8.10 c) is a completely new role for the main lexical verb kaufen. The addition of such a new role can lead to the appearance of new accusative constituents for otherwise ‘intransitive’ verbs like fischen ‘to fish’ or niesen ’to sneeze (8.11 a,b).
| (8.11) | a. | Ich habe den Teich leer gefischt. |
| b. | Ich habe das Taschentuch voll geniest. |
[8.16] Second, participles can be used as depictive adverbials (8.12), see also Section 9.2.4. In contrast, participles never function as resultative adverbials.
| (8.12) | a. | Ich habe den Laden leer gekauft. |
| b. | Ich habe den Laden gereinigt gekauft. |
[8.17] Third, resultative adjectival predicates in German do not seem to be possible in combination with verb particles (8.13 a-d). This is not just a semantic incompatibility, but also a syntactic one. The resultative adjectival predicates syntactically take the same place in the sentence as the verb particles. The preferred analysis of the resultative constructions in German is to consider the combination of adjective and verb as a complex predicate, i.e. vollschenken ‘to pour until full’ (8.13 a) or leerräumen ‘to empty’ (8.13 c), parallel to verb with particles like einschenken ‘to pour’ (8.13 c) and ausräumen ‘to empty’ (8.13 d).
| (8.13) | a. | Ich habe das Glas voll geschenkt. | |
| b. | * | Ich habe das Glas voll eingeschenkt. | |
| c. | Ich habe den Koffer leer geräumt. | ||
| d. | * | Ich habe den Koffer leer ausgeräumt. |
[8.18] In contrast, with depictive adjectives there is no problem with adding verb particles (8.14 a,b).
| (8.14) | a. | Sie kauft die Nägel krum ein. |
| b. | Ich habe mein Fahrrad grün angestrichen. |
[8.19] The most frequent resultative adjectival predicates in German are leer-, voll-, tot-, fest- (Eisenberg 2013: 322-323), but many others are also attested (8.15 a-c), e.g. stillschweigen, fertigstellen, vollquatschen, festschrauben, plattlaufen. Additionally, a datives from raised possessors are often possible (8.15 b), see Section 4.8.4, including subsequent reflexive constructions (8.15 c). The Duden grammar (2009: 790) presents Er hält/macht den Tisch sauber as examples of resultative adverbial constructions. However, these examples are probably better analysed as adjectival predicates with light verbs halten/machen, cf. Section 9.2.8.]
| (8.15) | a. | Er niest das Taschentuch voll. |
| b. | Er redet mir das Leben schön. | |
| c. | Ich rede mir mein Benehmen gut. |
[8.20] There is a lot of variation with resultative adverbs. It seems like the adverb itself has a strong impact on the kind of diathesis that is induced. In some examples there is even a demotion, though this does not seem to be frequent (8.16).
| (8.16) | a. | Ich sehe das Gemälde. |
| b. | Ich sehe mich satt an dem Gemälde. |
[8.21] There are various verbs in German that obligatorily need an adverbial, which are collected in this section. All examples discussed in this section concern verbs with obligatory depictive adverbials. I see no reason for obligatory resultative adverbials to be impossible – I simply have not encountered any examples yet. The phenomenon to look out for are verbs with a resultative adverbial like leerkaufen in which the main predicate kaufen is not attested as an individual verb, but only occurs in combination with resultative adverbials.
[8.22] Some verbs have obligatory manner adverbial arguments (8.17 a,b), called “Artergänzung” by Engelen (1986: 140). In some special situations the adverbial can be left out, but only with a subsequent strong evaluative implication. For example, with aussehen ‘to look/appear’ without an adverbial (8.17 c) there is a strong negative implication that somebody looks bad. In contrast, with a verb like sitzen ‘to fit’, the omission of the manner adverb implicates a positive fit (8.18 a,b). Note that negation also can function syntactically as a manner adverbial in this context (8.18 c).
| (8.17) | a. | Er sieht gut aus. | |
| b. | * | Er sieht aus. | |
| c. | Er sieht aber aus! |
| (8.18) | a. | Der Mantel sitzt gut. |
| b. | Der Mantel sitzt. | |
| c. | Der Mantel sitzt nicht. |
[8.23] Attested Verbs
[8.24] Examples
[8.25] The obligatory reflexive verb sich benehmen ‘to behave’ also preferably needs an adverbial constituent to describe how to behave (8.19 a,b), except in imperatives (8.19 c) and in some light verb constructions (8.19 d). Without an adverbial all uses have a conversational implicature of ‘good’ behavior. Note that there is a completely different meaning of benehmen without reflexive sich, meaning ‘to deprive of’ (8.19 e).
| (8.19) | a. | Ich benehme mich anständig. | |
| b. | ? | Ich benehme mich. | |
| c. | Benimm dich! | ||
| d. | Ich weiß mich zu benehmen. | ||
| e. | Der Schreck benimmt ihm den Atem. |
[8.26] The verbs sich verhalten and sich aufführen ‘to behave’ similarly always needs an adverbial that indicates the kind of behavior (8.20 a-d).
| (8.20) | a. | * | Ich verhalte mich. |
| b. | Ich verhalte mich tapfer. | ||
| c. | * | Ich führe mich auf. | |
| d. | Ich führe mich wie ein Holzklotz auf. |
[8.27] Attested Verbs
[8.28] Examples
[8.29] Both the manner adverbial and the governed preposition cannot be left out with halten ‘to think of’ (8.21).
| (8.21) | a. | Ich halte viel von dir | |
| b. | * | Ich halte viel. | |
| c. | * | Ich halte von dir. |
[8.30] Attested Verbs
[8.31] Both the manner adverbial and the accusative argument cannot be left out with stimmen ‘to raise the atmosphere’ (8.22).
| (8.22) | a. | Die Musik stimmt die Leute freundlich. | |
| b. | * | Die Musik stimmt die Leute. | |
| c. | * | Die Musik stimmt freundlich. |
[8.32] Attested Verbs
[8.33] Examples
[8.34] The verb bekommen in the meaning ‘to agree with someone’ needs a dative and cannot be used without an adverbial (8.23 a,b). The verb fallen can be used with either schwer or leicht, but apparently no other adverbials.
| (8.23) | a. | Das Essen bekommt mir schlecht. | |
| b. | * | Das Essen bekommt mir. | |
| c. | Die Aufgabe fällt mir schwer/leicht. | ||
| d. | * | Die Aufgabe fällt mir. |
[8.35] Attested Verbs
[8.36] Because there is no nominative argument in this special construction with gehen, meaning ‘to cope with life’ (8.24) a non-phoric es pronoun is necessary. Note that the same meaning of gehen also occurs in other impersonal constructions, see Section 8.3.7 and the dative here seems to be some kind of ‘free’ dative.
| (8.24) | Mir geht es gut. |
[8.37] Attested Verbs
[8.38] Some ‘impersonal’ verbs allow the presence or absence of a nominative subject (8.25 a,b). Whether this is better interpreted as the loss or the addition of an agent is unclear. The impersonal verbs in the current category need an additional manner adverbial, negation or wie comparison clause.
| (8.25) | a. | Das Gehalt langt nicht. |
| b. | Jetzt langt es aber! |
[8.39] Attested Verbs
[8.40] Examples
[8.41] Notes
[8.42] The verbs gehen, see Section 8.3.6 and langen, see Section 4.8.3 also allow for dative experiencers.
[8.43] Depictive adverbials are a regular part of German grammar. In all German sentences there are many different possibilities to add depictive adverbials. In this chapter, I consider the addition of such an adverbial as a sort of alternation, which is arguably a stretch of the meaning of the term alternation. However, as will be shown in the next sections, there are actually various examples in which the addition of an adverbial induces a change in valency. Yet, it is of course extremely common to have such a diathesis without any change in valency. That is actually the ‘normal’ situation with depictive adverbials, as illustrated in (8.26).
| (8.26) | a. | Ich fahre nach Hause. |
| b. | Ich fahre schnell nach Hause. |
[8.44] The situation is more interesting with resultative adverbials. There are many diatheses with resultative adverbials (as discussed throughout this chapter), but there also exist a few highly productive patterns in which the addition of a resultative adverb does not result in a diathesis. More research is needed to predict under what circumstances a diathesis occurs, and when not. In the next subsections I will present some illustrative examples in which there is no diathesis.
[8.45] There is a special construction that apparently only exists for some intransitive verbs like schlafen ‘to sleep’ (8.27 a). The verb is combined with a reflexive pronoun and a resultative secondary predicate. The meaning of this construction approximately amounts to ‘by performing the verb, the secondary predicate is achieved’ (8.27 b).
| (8.27) | Ich schlafe mich gesund. (= Ich schlafe, und dadurch bin ich gesund.) |
[8.46] The intransitive verbs that allow this seem to be strongly related to the ‘agentive’ class of intransitive (see Section 9.2.6), while typical ‘patientive’ intransitives are not possible in this construction.
| (8.28) | a. | * | Ich habe mich gesund eingeschlafen. |
| b. | * | Ich scheitere mich reich. | |
| c. | * | Ich sterbe mich tot. | |
| d. | * | Ich wachse mich groß. | |
| e. | ? | Der Zug ist sich gut angekommen. |
[8.47] When the combination of adverbial and verb is considered to be a new lexicalised predicate (i.e. totlachen, hocharbeiten), then these predicates would be obligatorily reflexive (alike to the verbs in Section 6.3.1).
[8.48] Attested Verbs
[8.49] Examples
[8.50] The same reflexive + adverbial alternation is attesed with some verbs that take a governed preposition, like lachen ‘to laugh’ (8.29). Note that the prepositional phrase can be retained.
| (8.29) | a. | Ich lache (über den Witz). |
| b. | Ich lache mich tot (über den Witz). |
[8.51] Attested Verbs
[8.52] Examples
[8.53] Different from the verbs in the previous class, some intransitive verbs like rennen ‘to run’ allow for a secondary predicate without any other structural changes, resulting for example in losrennen ‘to start running’ (8.30). I consider this to be resultative secondary predicates because to the parallelism to the applicative diathese in Section 8.8.2.
| (8.30) | a. | Der Junge rennt. |
| b. | Der Junge rennt los. |
[8.54] An additional affect of this alternation is that the agentive rennen becomes a patientive losrennen (8.31), see also Section 9.2.6.
| (8.31) | a. | Der Junge hat gerannt. * Der gerannte Junge. |
| b. | Der Junge ist losgerannt. Der losgerannte Junge. |
[8.55] Attested Verbs
[8.56] Examples
[8.57] With transitive verbs, the addition of a resultative adverb does not lead to any role remapping. This appears to be a frequent phenomenon and the examples given are just a few illustrative cases. The diathesis-free alternation of these verbs is quite different from the effect resultative adverbs have on many intransitive verbs (see Section 8.8.2).
| (8.32) | a. | Der Händler kauft die Sklaven. |
| b. | Der Händler kauft die Sklaven frei. |
[8.58] Attested Verb
[8.59] Examples
[8.60] Many intransitives allow for a dropping of the nominative with a obligatory reflexive pronoun sich and an obligatory adverbial. Because of the dropped nominative there is an obligatory non-phoric es in such sentences (8.33 a). Such constructions seem to be possible with very many intransitives, though with some verbs, like aufstehen ‘rise’ it is of debatable grammaticality (8.33 b). More research is needed into the question which intransitive verbs do not allow this diathesis.
| (8.33) | a. | In der Gruppe lacht es sich besser. | |
| b. | ? | Am frühen morgen steht es sich schlecht auf. |
[8.61] A very similar diathesis is attested with transitives, see Section 8.5.2, but in that case the accusative is retained as a nominative (i.e. anticausative). Also note that connection between an intransitive drop and a transitive anticausative is strongly reminiscent of the unaccusative hypothesis, see Section 9.2.6. However, there does not seem to be an obvious match between patientive (‘unaccusative’) verbs and the verbs that allow for the current diathesis (cf. Steinbach 1998: 15-18).
[8.62] Attested Verbs
[8.63] Examples
[8.64] With many verbs an anticausative is only possible with an evaluative adverbial and a reflexive pronoun (8.34). There is a clear parallel to the diathesis for intransitives described in Section 8.5.1. The semantically highly similar lassen + Infinitiv construction (8.34 c) does not need the adverbial (see Section 10.5.3).
| (8.34) | a. | Ich scheine die Wurst mit diesem Messer. |
| b. | Die Wurst schneidet sich schwer mit diesem Messer. | |
| c. | Die Wurst lässt sich mit diesem Messer schneiden. |
[8.65] Kunze (1996: 647) and Steinbach (1998) call this ‘middle’, Zifonun (2003) ‘fazilitives Medium’, Wiemer & Nedjalkov (2007: 465-466) classify it as a ‘passive-like meaning of reflexive’ and Kulikov (2011: 375-376) talks about a ‘potential agentless passive’. Steinbach (1998: 25ff.) argues that the adverbial is not necessary in the ‘middle’ construction, but this is because he combines different constructions under the heading of ‘middle’. His examples without adverbial are discussed here as a separate construction in Section 6.5.2.
[8.66] Attested Verbs
[8.67] Examples
[8.68] Notes
[8.69] Some of these verbs can also occur with a ‘free’ dative, see Section 6.4.4.
[8.70] The verb riechen ‘to smell’ allows for an anticausative alternation (8.35 a,b), but the intransitive obligatorily needs an adverbial. It is possible to leave out the adverbial, but then a strong negative entailment arises, i.e. without an adverbial the smell is bad (8.35 c). Interestingly, with schmecken ‘to taste’ the absence of an adverbial leads to a positive entailment (8.35 d).
| (8.35) | a. | Ich rieche den Duft. |
| b. | Der Duft riecht gut | |
| c. | Der Müll riecht (schlecht). | |
| d. | Das Essen schmeckt (gut). |
[8.71] Attested Verbs
[8.72] Examples
[8.73] Some verbs that have a typical instrument connected to the action allow for the instrument to be turned into the nominative subject, but only with the addition of an adverbial (8.36).
| (8.36) | a. | Ich schneide (das Brot) mit einem Messer. | |
| b. | Das Messer schneidet das Brot. | ||
| c. | ? | Das Messer schneidet. | |
| d. | Das Messer schneidet gut. |
[8.74] Attested Verbs
[8.75] Examples
[8.76] Not attested.
[8.77] Most transitive verbs can be used without an accusative object. However, with some verbs this drop comes easier than for others. Real ‘ambitransitive’ verbs that occur both as transitive and as intransitive, but without needing any extra marking in the intransitive, are discussed in Section 4.7.1. For many transitive verbs the drop of the accusative is only possible in an strict action-oriented focus, like as a reply to a question like “what are you doing just now?” In effect, this implies that such intransitive usage always needs an adverbial specification
| (8.37) | a. | Ich sehe das Haus. | |
| b. | ? | Ich sehe. | |
| c. | Ich sehe gut. |
| (8.38) | a. | Ich lese ein Buch. | |
| b. | ? | Ich lese. | |
| c. | Morgen lese ich den ganzen Tag. |
[8.78] Attested Verbs
[8.79] Examples
[8.80] Similar to the endoreflexiv (Section 6.7.1), but with obligatory depictive adverbial (8.39).
| (8.39) | a. | Ich fühle die Schmerzen. | |
| b. | Ich fühle mich schlecht. | ||
| c. | * | Ich fühle mich. |
[8.81] Attested Verbs
[8.82] Some verbs allow for constructions with an possibly non-phoric es pronoun in the accusative, see Section 5.3.5. With some verbs in this construction a manner adverbial is also necessarily present (8.40 a,b). Without the manner adverbial the only possible interpretation of the pronoun es is phoric (8.40 c).
| (8.40) | a. | Ich meine deinen Bruder. | |
| b. | Ich meine es ernst. | ||
| c. | * | Ich meine ernst. | |
| d. | Ich meine es. |
[8.83] Attested Verbs
[8.84] Examples
[8.85] The locational prepositional phrase with verbs like binden ‘to tie’ is obligatory (8.41). In contrast, when adding a resultative adverbial to form losbinden ‘to untie’ the locational phrase is not obligatory anymore (8.41 c,d), cf. Section 7.7.11. I currently only know of examples of this diathesis with adverbials los, fest and weg. However, I do not see any reason for other adverbials to be impossible.
| (8.41) | a. | Ich binde den Hund an die Leine. | |
| b. | * | Ich binde den Hund. | |
| c. | Ich binde den Hund von der Leine los. | ||
| d. | Ich binde den Hund los. |
[8.86] Attested Verbs
[8.87] Examples
| (8.42) | a. | Das Wasser läuft in die Badewanne. |
| b. | Die Badewanne läuft voll (mit Wasser). |
[8.88] Attested Verbs
[8.89] Similar to the previous group, some intransitives with obligatory location (8.43 a,b) can be used without this location when an adverbial is added (8.43 c). However, with intransitives an additional reflexive pronoun is necessary.
| (8.43) | a. | Der Patient liegt auf dem Bett. | |
| b. | ? | Der Patient liegt. | |
| c. | Der Patient liegt sich wund (auf dem Bett). |
[8.90] Attested Verbs
[8.91] The accusative object of sehen ‘to see’ is transformed into a prepositional phrase when adding the adverbial satt to form sattessen ‘to eat full’ (8.44). This antipassive diathesis is currently only attested with the adverb satt, but I do not see any prinicple reason for other adverbs to be impossible here. See Section 7.7.6 for similar examples with preverbs.
| (8.44) | a. | Ich sehe das Gemälde. |
| b. | Ich sehe mich satt an dem Gemälde. |
[8.92] Attested Verbs
[8.93] Examples
[8.94] Adding a resultative adverbial to a transitive verb lead to an applicative diatheses. Any erstwhile prepositional phrase is turned into an accusative. With the adverbial leer it does not seem to be possible to retain the erstwhile accusative (8.45). In contrast, with the adverbial voll the retention of the accusative as a prepositional phrase is possible (8.46).
| (8.45) | a. | Ich kaufe ein Brot in dem Geschäft. |
| b. | Ich kaufe das Geschäft leer. |
[8.95] Attested Verbs
[8.96] Examples
[8.97] Some intransitives, like bellen ‘to bark’ get a completely new role in the accusative with the addition of a resultative adverbial (8.46). This seems to be a special case of the more productive applicative as discusses in the next section.
[8.98] ::: ex a. Der Hund bellt. b. Der Hund bellt die Kinder wach.
[8.99] Attested Verbs
[8.100] Examples
[8.101] This appears to be the most productive kind of diathesis with a resultative adverbial. An optional prepositional phrase of an intransitive verb like niesen ‘to sneeze’ (8.46 a) is reformulated as an accusative with the resultative adverbial, here *voll ‘full’ (8.46 b). There are many different adverbials that induce this diatheses. The list presented below is in no way complete, but should just be seen as a set of random examples. With transitive verbs the addition of such resultative adverbs mostly does not lead to any role-remapping (see Section 8.4.4).
| (8.46) | a. | Ich niese (in das Taschentuch). |
| b. | Ich niese das Taschentuch voll. |
[8.102] This diathesis is also attested with governed prepositions
| (8.47) | a. | Ich rede über dein Benehmen. Ich rede darüber, dass du dich gut benommen hast. |
| b. | Ich rede dein Benehmen gut. |
[8.103] Attested Verbs
[8.104] Examples
[8.105] Notes
[8.106] Some of these verbs allow for the addition of an accusative result (8.48 a,b), see Section 4.8.1. The diathese between (8.48 b) and (8.48 c) then becomes an example of a full applicative, see Section 8.9.1.
| (8.48) | a. | Ich laufe auf meinen neuen Schuhen. |
| b. | Ich laufe den Marathon auf meinen neuen Schuhen. | |
| c. | Ich laufe meine Schuhe bei den Marathon platt/kaputt. |
[8.107] The adverbial voll induces a full applicative, promotion a prepositional phrase to accusative, while the erstwhile accusative can still be (optionally) retained as a mit prepositional phrase. The examples with leer in Section 8.7.8 are highly similar, but cannot retain the erstwhile accusative.
| (8.49) | a. | Ich schenke den Wein in das Glas. |
| b. | Ich schenke das Glas voll (mit Wein). |
[8.108] Attested Verbs
[8.109] Examples
[9.1] The term participle is used here as the name for a verb form known in German grammar as Partizip II, for example geschrieben ‘written’ in (9.1). There is another Partizip, known in German grammar as Partizip I, but this word form plays no role in the expression of diatheses. Constructions consisting of a participle combined with an auxiliary-like ‘light’ verb (i.e. a verb with limited lexical meaning) are manifold in German. They include constructions without diathesis, like the German haben + Partizip perfekt (9.1 a), and constructions with diathesis, like the werden + Partizip vorgangspassiv (9.1 b).
| (9.1) | a. | Ich habe einen Brief geschrieben. |
| b. | Der Brief wurde geschrieben. |
[9.2] Diatheses consisting of light verbs with participles are widely acknowledged as crucial constructions of German grammar. For example, the werden + Partizip passive is often seen as the quintessential example of a diathesis. Other similar constructions are also extensively discussed, like sein + Partizip (9.2 a), known as zustandspassiv (see Section 9.5.15), and bekommen + Partizip (9.2 b), known as rezipientenpassiv (see Section 9.5.19). Many others, though, are only sporadically discussed, like gehören + Partizip (9.2 c), here called normpassiv (see Section 9.5.16).
| (9.2) | a. | Der Brief ist schon fertig geschrieben. |
| b. | Er bekommt einen Brief geschrieben. | |
| c. | Dieser Brief gehört geschrieben. |
[9.3] This chapter is an attempt to provide a complete survey of light-verb constructions with participles in German. Care has to be taken to distinguish light-verb constructions (9.3 a) from constructions in which the participle is used adverbially as a depictive secondary predicate (9.3 b). Both constructions superficially look very similar, but can be distinguished by various syntactic characteristics (see Section 9.2.4). For example, in subordinate constructions a depictive participle can stay together with the depicted noun and then possibly be separated from the light verb (9.3 b), while in a light-verb construction the participle always has to occur directly adjacent to the light verb (9.3 a).
| (9.3) | a. | Er hält das Haus verschlossen. Es ist bekannt, dass er das Haus vor den Kindern verschlossen hält. |
| b. | Er hinterlässt das Haus verschlossen. Es ist bekannt, dass er das Haus verschlossen den Kindern hinterlässt. |
[9.4] After all such adverbial uses are discarded, there still remain many auxiliary-like light verbs that can be combined with a participle into a grammaticalised construction. The attested light verbs are summarised below by their literal meaning, but it is crucial to realise that these literal meanings are mostly lost in the grammaticalised constructions with participles. Also note that various of these verbs only rarely occur as light verbs. All these light-verb constructions will be discussed in separate subsections throughout this chapter.
[9.5] The following eleven diatheses seem prominent enough to grant them a German name. I propose the following names:
[9.6] German participles – in German grammar idiosyncratically known as Partizip II – can rather straightforwardly be identified by their morphology. However, this identification is complicated by the existence of a wide range of allomorphy, which will only be succinctly summarised here (cf. Duden-Grammatik 2009: 440, §613-614; Eisenberg 2006b: 201-202):
[9.7] The allomorphs without ge- show show syncretism, because such participles are identical to third person singular finite verb forms (or first person plural when ending in -en). In (9.4 a) the wordform verkauft is a finite third person singular, while in (9.4 b) it is a participle. However, given that the finite verbs show agreement with the subject, checking a different subject easily differentiates between these two homonyms, e.g. in the first person singular the finite verb changes to verkaufe (9.4 c), while the participle remains unchanged (9.4 d).
| (9.4) | a. | Er verkauft das Haus. |
| b. | Er hat das Haus verkauft. | |
| c. | Ich verkaufe das Haus. | |
| d. | Ich habe das Haus verkauft. |
[9.8] The formation of participles is highly productive in German. Every verb stem (i.e. every stem that can be used with person-inflected finite morphology) allows for the formation of a participle.63 The formation of participles is so productive that speakers have no problem producing participles for newly invented pseudo-words. The reversal is not true though, as there exist many participles that do not have corresponding finite verb forms (see Section 9.3).
[9.9] Participles, like geputzt ‘cleaned’ in (9.5), can be used in three different syntactic functions in the grammar of German, namely as (i) an adnominal adjective (9.5 a), see Section 9.2.6, as (ii) a depictive secondary predicate (9.5 b), see Section 9.2.4, and as (iii) a part of light-verb construction (9.5 c,d) to be discussed extensively throughout this chapter.
| (9.5) | a. | Das geputzte Haus erstrahlt im Sonnenlicht. |
| b. | Er verkauft das Haus geputzt. | |
| c. | Er hat das Haus geputzt. | |
| d. | Das Haus wird geputzt. |
[9.10] Arguably, these three functions are part of the spectrum of uses that are also available to German adjectives, like leer ‘empty’ in (9.6). Basically then, participles are morphologically derived verb forms that are syntactically alike to adjectives.
| (9.6) | a. | Das leere Haus erstrahlt im Sonnenlicht. |
| b. | Er verkauft das Haus leer. | |
| c. | Er macht das Haus leer. | |
| d. | Das Haus ist leer. |
[9.11] Not all participles can be used in all three syntactic functions, however. For example, the participle geschlafen ‘slept’ (9.7) only allows for one of the contexts exemplified with geputzt in (9.5) above. Central to the discussion in this chapter is the fact that participles differ as to the kind of constructions in which they can occur.
| (9.7) | a. | * | Das geschlafene Kind liegt im Bett. |
| b. | * | Er beobachtet das Kind geschlafen. | |
| c. | Das Kind hat geschlafen. | ||
| d. | * | Das Kind wird geschlafen. |
[9.12] Crucially, the adnominal and adverbial usage of participles are not monoclausal. An adnominal participle is an alternative expression of a relative subordinate clause and an adverbial participle has the status of an adverbial subordinate clause. In contrast, the light-verb constructions with participles are monoclausal.
[9.13] The first observation of a restriction on participle usage goes back to the Sprachlehre of Carl Friedrich Aichinger (1754: 282 ff.). He reserves the term participium for those stems that allow for an adnominal usage of their participles, like with geputzt in (9.5). His rationale for this restriction is that ‘real’ participles should allow for declension (like in Latin) and in German only the adnominal usage shows (minimal) declension. In contrast, participles that only occur in light-verb constructions, like geschlafen in (9.7) are morphologically immutable in German. Inflected word forms like geschlafene, geschlafenes or geschlafenen do not exist in German. Aichinger proposes a separate name for such immutable participles, namely supinum. This nomenclature is unfortunate, because the German participle has no relation at all to the Latin supine, neither formally nor functionally. Being criticised for this terminology, Aichinger in a later reply explains that he uses the term Supinum solely because the Latin supine is also an immutable verb from (Aichinger 1776: 627). Although there are many unfortunate terminological confusions in the history of linguistics, this usage of the term Supinum is regrettably still around in German grammatical literature to this day (with a history of transmission that deserves more in-depth study), most forcefully reinforced by the usage of this term in Bech (1955) and the large literature building on that influential work.
[9.14] The basic observation of Aichinger, though, is sound. There is clearly a group of verbs in German that do not allow for an adnominal usage of their participle. The impossibility of participles to function adnominally is nowadays often included as one of the characteristics of so-called unaccusative intransitives (here called ‘agentive’). Basically (and strongly simplified), the claim is that the verbs without adnominal participles are intransitive verbs that take the auxiliary haben in the perfect (see Section 9.2.6). Empirically, this correlation appears to be rather strong, though it is not without exceptions. For example, the verb schmerzen ‘to hurt’ (participle geschmerzt) and the verb lügen ‘to lie’ (participle gelogen) both have a perfect with the auxiliary haben and their participles are typically not used adnominally. However, exceptions can be found (9.8), though semantically these examples suggest a ‘patientive’ relation between the participle and the noun.
| (9.8) | a. | Sein Körper hat geschmerzt. Ähnlich ekstatisch geschmerzte Körper zeichneten der junge Kokoschka und Egon Schiele, als das Jahrhundert gerade begonnen hatte.64 |
| b. | Er hat gelogen über die Geschichte. Die offizielle, aber gelogene Variante der Geschichte hat ihn selber mehr ergriffen.65 |
[9.15] Further, many intransitive verbs with a haben perfect can be used with a resultative accusative, for example manner-of-speaking verbs like weinen ‘to cry’ or movement verbs like tanzen ‘to dance’ (see Section 4.8.1). In such resultative usage they are transitives, and then the participle can be used adnominally with the accusative object (9.9).
| (9.9) | a. | Er hat geweint. Ich höre laute Schreie und unverständlich geweinte Worte aus dem Nebenzimmer.66 |
| b. | Er hat getanzt. Besonders der im Biedermeierkostüm getanzte Aschenbrödeltanz mit Vertonung von Zepler ergab wirkungsvolle Bilder.67 |
[9.16] An even more intricate detail occurs with some movement verbs like laufen ‘to walk’. When used with a directional phrase like nach Hause ‘home’ this verb takes the auxiliary sein (9.10 a) and then the participle together with the directional phrase can be used adnominally (9.10 b). In contrast, the auxiliary haben seems incompatible with a directional phrase (9.10 c) and the participle without the directional phrase cannot be used adnominally (9.10 d).
| (9.10) | a. | Der Schüler ist nach Hause gelaufen. | |
| b. | Der nach Hause gelaufene Schüler weint. | ||
| c. | Der Schüler hat *(nach Hause) gelaufen. | ||
| d. | * | Der gelaufene Schüler weint. |
[9.17] Participles that can be used adnominally can also be used adverbially, as so-called depictive secondary predicates (9.11 a), cf. also Section 8.2.2. In such sentences, the participle functions syntactically like an adverb in the sentence structure (9.11 b). The problem is that constructions with adverbial participles, like (9.11 a), are highly similar to light-verb constructions. For example, both constructions are coherent (9.11 c,d), cf. Section 1.3.1.
| (9.11) | a. | Er verkauft die Nägel gebogen. | |
| b. | Er verkauft die Nägel jetzt. | ||
| c. | Es ist bekannt, dass er die Nägel gebogen/jetzt verkauft. | ||
| d. | * | Es ist bekannt, dass er verkauft die Nägel gebogen/jetzt. |
[9.18] Diachronically, the depictive usage of participles is likely to be the origin of light-verb constructions. Various light-verb constructions appear to be only partially grammaticalised. For example, the participle geschenkt in (9.12 a) can both be interpreted as a depictive predicate with the meaning as in (9.12 b) and as part of a light-verb construction with meaning as in (9.12 c), see Section 9.5.19.
| (9.12) | a. | Er bekommt ein Buch geschenkt. |
| b. | Er bekommt ein Buch als Geschenk. | |
| c. | Ihm wird ein Buch geschenkt. |
[9.19] Synchronically, predicates as depictive secondary predicates and participles in light-verb constructions can be clearly separated. In the remainder of this section I will present five such criteria:
[9.20] First, a participle as secondary predicate (9.13 a) can in most cases easily be identified by trying to leave it out of the sentence (9.13 b) or replace it with an adverb (9.13 c). The finite predicate of the sentence (here verkaufen, ‘to sell’) should not change its meaning, and in general the meaning of the sentence will remain almost identical (except of course for the meaning of the missing or replaced participle).
| (9.13) | a. | Er verkauft die Nägel gebogen. |
| b. | Er verkauft die Nägel. | |
| c. | Er verkauft die Nägel jetzt. |
[9.21] Second, more detailed indications to distinguish secondary predicates (9.14 a) from light verb constructions (9.15 a) can be obtained by investigating whether the participle behaves like an adverb. This can, for example, be shown overtly by trying to add linguistic material between the participle and the finite verb in a subordinate clause. This is possible for a participle as secondary predicate (9.14 b) and for adverbs (9.14 c). In contrast, for light-verb constructions in a subordinate clause, the finite verb always should follow immediately after the participle (9.15 b) with no possibility for anything to intervene (9.15 c).
| (9.14) | a. | Er kauft die Schuhe im Geschäft immer geputzt. |
| b. | Es ist bekannt, dass er die Schuhe immer geputzt im Geschäft kauft. | |
| c. | Es ist bekannt, dass er die Schuhe immer morgens im Geschäft kauft. |
| (9.15) | a. | Er bekommt die Schuhe im Geschäft immer geputzt. (= Ihm werden die Schuhe im Geschäft immer geputzt.) |
|
| b. | Es ist bekannt, dass er die Schuhe immer im Geschäft geputzt bekommt. | ||
| c. | * | Es ist bekannt, dass er die Schuhe immer geputzt im Geschäft bekommt. |
[9.22] Third, secondary predication with participles can also be distinguished from light verb constructions by considering negation. Negation in sentences with a participle as a secondary predicate normally negates this secondary predicate itself (lexical scope), just like adverbs (9.16 a,b). With secondary predicates it is often even possible to use the prefix un- to mark the lexical scope of the negation over the participle (9.16 c). When the prefix un- can be added, this is an easy test for adverbial usage (Rothstein 2007a: 161-162).
| (9.16) | a. | Er kauft die Schuhe nicht jetzt. |
| b. | Er kauft die Schuhe nicht geputzt. | |
| c. | Er kauft die Schuhe (nur) ungeputzt. |
[9.23] In contrast, negation in a monoclausal light verb construction with a participle has a wide scope reading over the whole sentence. For example, in (9.17 a) the verb bekommen has two different readings. Either, as in (9.17 b), the verb bekommen is a full lexical verb with the meaning ‘to get as a gift’ and a narrow scope negation over the participle nicht geputzt (which is almost equivalent to ungeputzt ‘uncleaned’), resulting in a meaning of ‘he gets a gift of uncleaned shoes’. In this interpretation, the participle is a secondary predicate. Alternatively (9.17 c), bekommen can be interpreted as a light verb with a meaning ‘to get something done for you’ with a full verb as participle geputzt ‘cleaned’. Together with the wide scope negation the meaning of the sentence then becomes ‘he doesn’t manage to get his shoes cleaned’. In this interpretation, the participle is part of a light verb construction bekommen + Participle, see Section 9.5.19.
| (9.17) | a. | Er bekommt die Schuhe nicht geputzt. |
| b. | Er kriegt ein Geschenk, nämlich ungeputzte Schuhe. | |
| c. | Er schafft es nicht seine Schuhe putzen zu lassen. |
[9.24] Note further that the sentence stress in (9.17 a) differs for both readings. The reading (9.17 b) has stress on the negation nicht (as is usually the case for lexical scope), while the reading (9.18 c) has stress on the participle geputzt (which is the regular stress placement for a wide-scope negation of the indicative main clause).
[9.25] Fourth, a further difference between participles as secondary predicate (9.18 a) and light verb constructions (9.18 b,c) is that secondary predicates are in many contexts ambiguous as to the scope of the predicate. For example, in (9.18 a) the secondary predicate bekleidet ‘dressed’ can be interpreted both as referring to the accusative object Patienten ‘patients’ and (in this infamous example with a humorous undertone) to the nominative subject Doktor ‘doctor’. With a light verb construction there is never any ambiguity.
| (9.18) | a. | Der Doktor untersucht seine Patienten immer bekleidet. |
| b. | Der Doktor weiß seine Patienten immer bekleidet. | |
| c. | Der Doktor wird bekleidet. |
[9.26] Fifth and finally, in some circumstances arguments can be retained when participles are used as secondary predicate. For example, the syntactic function of the adverb kaputt ‘broken’ in (9.19 a) can be replaced by a participle überlassen ‘to abandon’, but only when the dative dem Wetter is retained (9.19 c). This dative is not governed by the main verb aussehen ‘to appear’ but by the embedded predicate überlassen (9.19 b).
| (9.19) | a. | Der Balkon sieht kaputt aus. (replacing kaputt with Irgendjemand überlässt den Balkon dem Wetter:) Der Balkon sieht dem Wetter überlassen aus. |
|
| b. | * | Der Balkon sieht überlassen aus. |
[9.27] Some more examples of such retained arguments are shown in (9.20) with intransitive and reflexive main verbs, and prepositional and dative retained arguments.
| (9.20) | a. | Er hustete plötzlich. (replacing plötzlich with Schmerzen quälen ihn:) Er hustete von Schmerzen gequält. |
| b. | Der Beschuldigte fühlt sich schlecht. (replacing schlecht with Irgendjemand liefert ihn dem Gericht aus:) Der Beschuldigte fühlt sich dem Gericht ausgeliefert. |
[9.28] A widely discussed property of participle construction is the temporal structure of the resulting expression (cf. Höhle 1978: 42; Nedjalkov 1988: 412; Maienborn 2007: 88; Businger 2011: 162, among many others). There is a recurrent difference between tense-oriented and perfect-oriented participle constructions (perfect in the sense of Comrie 1976: Ch. 3). The role of perfective and imperfective aspectual meanings is rather inconclusive, so I propose to focus on slightly odd opposition “tense vs. perfect” as the main diagnostic for the differences in temporal structure established by participle constructions. Note that in the German grammatical tradition there is a verb form called Perfekt that, confusingly, is primarily tense-oriented and not perfect-oriented (more on this below).
[9.29] A construction is tense-oriented when it is possible to add a punctual non-present temporal adverbial to the participle construction, like gestern ‘yesterday’, morgen ‘tomorrow’, or vor zwei Tagen ‘two days ago’. Contemporaneous adverbials, like jetzt ‘now’ or heute ‘today’ are not useful to test for tense-orientation, as they are also compatible with perfect-orientation. For example, the werden Passive in (9.21 a) and the bekommen Dative Passive in (9.21 b) are both tense-oriented. In contrast, the bleiben anticausative in (9.22 a) and the wissen Opiniativ in (9.22 b) are both not tense-oriented.
| (9.21) | a. | Das Auto wird morgen repariert. |
| b. | Er bekommt morgen das Auto repariert. |
| (9.22) | a. | * | Die Tür bleibt morgen geöffnet. |
| b. | * | Sie weiß ihr kind gestern/morgen eingeschlafen. |
[9.30] Two conditions have to be met to identify a construction as being perfect-oriented, namely (i) the process has to be completed and (ii) the resulting state-of-affairs remains intact after this completion. These two conditions can be tested in German by observing that (i) in a context stating the completion (ii) it is possible to add an ‘ongoing’ temporal adverbial, like retrospective schon lange ‘for a long time’ and seit zwei Stunden ‘since two hours’, or prospective für zwei Stunden ‘for two hours’ and bis morgen ‘until tomorrow’. For example, the bleiben and wissen participle constructions are perfect-oriented (9.23). As discussed previously, these constructions are not tense-oriented (9.22). In general, most constructions are either perfect-oriented or past-oriented with only few exceptions. Congruously, the tense-oriented constructions with werden and bekommen (9.21) are not perfect-oriented (9.24). Note that the first condition of perfect-orientation (viz. that the process has to be completed) is crucial here. A sentence like Das Auto wird seit zwei Stunden repariert is grammatically perfectly fine in German, but only with an imperfective durative interpretation, i.e. the process is not completed, but still ongoing.
| (9.23) | a. | (Kontext: Die Tür ist offen.) Die Tür bleibt bis morgen geöffnet. |
| b. | (Kontext: Das Kind schläft.) Sie weiß ihr kind schon seit zwei Stunden eingeschlafen. |
| (9.24) | (Kontext: Die Reparatur des Autos ist abgeschlossen.) | ||
| a. | * | Das Auto wird seit zwei Stunden repariert. | |
| b. | * | Er bekommt das Auto schon lange repariert. | |
[9.31] The tense-oriented participle constructions are listed in (9.25). All others are perfect-oriented. The actual time reference of tense-oriented participle constructions depends on the marking of the light verb.
| (9.25) | Major tense-oriented participle constructions: | |
| a. | werden + Partizip Passive (see Section 9.5.14) | |
| b. | gehören + Partizip Passive (see Section 9.5.16) | |
| c. | bekommen + Partizip Dative Passive (see Section 9.5.19) | |
| d. | kommen + Partizip Movement (see Section 9.4.15) | |
| e. | haben + Partizip Perfect (see Section 9.4.1) | |
| f. | sein + Partizip Perfect (see Section 9.4.2) | |
[9.32] Normally (except for the haben/sein Perfekt), when the light verb is in the Präsens, then the construction has present/future time reference (9.26 a). Alternatively, when the light verb is marked as Präteritum, then the construction has past time reference and implies completion (9.26 b). The time reference of perfect-oriented constructions works slightly different. When the light verb is in the Präsens then the resulting state is still in effect at the time of utterance (9.27 a). In contrast, with the light verb in the Präteritum the resulting state has come to an end (9.27 b).
| (9.26) | a. | Das Auto wird morgen repariert. (↦ Das Auto is noch nicht fertig.) |
| b. | Das Auto wurde gestern repariert. (↦ Das Auto ist fertig.) |
| (9.27) | a. | Die Tür ist seit gestern geöffnet. (↦ Die Tür ist immer noch offen.) |
| b. | Die Tür war seit gestern geöffnet. (↦ Die Tür ist nicht mehr offen.) |
[9.33] The temporal interpretation of the haben/sein + Partizip Perfect is the exception to the basic regularities as stated above. There is a lot of fluidity in the temporal interpretation of the Perfect, with much dialectal variation, ongoing change, and idiosyncratic diversity (cf. Fischer 2020). Most importantly though, while the constructions are traditionally called Perfekt in the German grammatical tradition, they are always tense-oriented (9.28 a,b). Individual verbs like fliehen ‘to flee’ also allow for a perfect orientation (9.28 d), but this option appears to be completely dependent on the specific lexical semantics of the verb.
| (9.28) | a. | Ich habe gestern (*morgen) geblutet. |
|
| b. | Der Gefangene ist gestern (*morgen) geflohen. | ||
| c. | * | Ich habe seit drei Tage geblutet. |
|
| d. | ? | Der Gefangene ist seit drei Tagen geflohen. |
[9.34] Differently from all other tense-oriented constructions, with the light verb in the Präsens the Perfect has past time reference. With the light verb in the Präteritum the time-reference remains past, though there is an additional implication of the completion of the process (9.29).
| (9.29) | a. | Ich hatte gestern geblutet. (↦ Ich blute nicht mehr.) |
| b. | Der Gefangene war gestern geflohen. (↦ Der Gefangene ist wieder gefangen.) |
[9.35] By combining the tense-oriented sein Perfekt with another tense-oriented construction like the werden Passive, the resulting stack is (obviously) still tense-oriented (9.30 a,b). This is important because the resulting stack (9.30 b) looks very similar to the Zustandspassiv (9.30 c), but the Zustandspassiv is not tense-oriented.
| (9.30) | a. | Das Auto wird repariert. | |
| b. | Das Auto ist gestern repariert worden. | ||
| c. | * | Das Auto ist gestern repariert. |
[9.36] In recent years there has been an extensive discussion about two classes of intransitive verbs depending on their light-verb possibilities. This discussion originated with the discussion on the impersonal werden passive (see Section 9.5.1) in Perlmutter (1978). He introduced the terms unergative/unakkusative for intransitive verbs that do (unergative) or do not (unaccusative) allow for such impersonal passives (see Pullum 1988 for a discussion of the origin of the term and scholarly predecessors; for an early discussions in German, see Wunderlich 1985). The most extensive discussion of the grammatical possibilities of intransitives in German can be found in Grewendorf (1989), though unfortunately (and confusingly) using the term ‘ergative’ for what Perlmutter calls ‘unaccusative’. Similar phenomena of splits in intransitives have long been recognised in the typological literature under various names. Instead of unergative/unaccusative one can find active/inactive (Sapir 1917: 85), Sa/So (Dixon 1979: 70) or more mnemonic agentive/patientive (cf. Mithun 1991). These last terms will be used here. The term agentive is used here because the sole argument of an agentive intransitive verb is syntactically treated similar to the agent of a transitive verb. Likewise, The name patientive is used because the sole argument of patientive intransitive verb is syntactically treated similar to the patient of a transitive verb.
[9.37] The basic proposal from Perlmutter (1978) is the unaccusative hypothesis. This hypothesis proposes that the sole argument of certain intransitive verbs is underlyingly alike to a transitive object (i.e. patientive). Such verbs can be identified by various syntactic characteristics. For example, a patientive verb like einschlafen ‘to fall asleep’ combines with sein to form the perfect (9.31 a) and not with haben (9.31 b). Further, patientives do not allow for an impersonal werden passive (9.31 c), but they can be used adnominally (9.31 d). In contrast, an agentive intransitive verb like schlafen ‘to sleep’ has the reversed distribution (9.32).
| (9.31) | a. | Das Kind ist eingeschlafen. | |
| b. | * | Das Kind hat eingeschlafen. | |
| c. | * | Jetzt wird eingeschlafen. | |
| d. | Das eingeschlafene Kind schnarcht. |
| (9.32) | a. | * | Das Kind ist geschlafen. |
| b. | Das Kind hat geschlafen. | ||
| c. | Jetzt wird geschlafen. | ||
| d. | * | Das geschlafene Kind schnarcht. |
[9.38] However, there is much more variation in the distribution of light-verb constructions besides just agentives and patientives, as summarised in Table 9.1. Basically, every theoretical possibility of light-verb construction is attested (except for neither sein nor haben). The real challenge concealed behind the unaccusativity hypothesis is the question how widespread all of these possibilities are. The einschlafen-class (“patientive”) and the schlafen-class (“agentive”) are undoubtedly large classes of intransitive verbs in German. However, it is a clear desideratum for research in corpus-based lexicology to exhaustively classify verbs in this way. Only then will it be possible to judge which classes are significant for German grammar (and which classes, if any, consist of only incidental exceptional examples).
| verb | sein | haben | werden |
|---|---|---|---|
| einschlafen | + | – | – |
| fallen | + | – | + |
| rosten | + | + | – |
| klettern | + | + | + |
| bluten | – | + | – |
| schlafen | – | + | + |
[9.39] Looking even further, there are many more light-verb constructions besides sein, haben and werden that can be included. For example, bleiben + Partizip (see Section 9.4.11) only seems possible with einschlafen, while scheinen + Partizip (see Section 9.4.10) seems possible with einschlafen and fallen, and kommen + an- + Partizip (see Section 9.4.15) only applies to fallen and klettern. Also of interest in this context is the possibility of various impersonal diatheses (see e.g. Section 8.5.1 and Section 10.5.1). This chapter will not attempts to answer the question how many different such verb classes are attested, but only takes the first step of presenting a list of possible light-verb constructions to be investigated in-depth in future research.
[9.40] Many light-verb constructions with participles will be discussed in more than one subsection in this chapter. This is necessary because many light-verb constructions show different sentence alternations for verbs with different valency. Typically, participles of intransitive and transitive verbs will lead to different alternations. For example, some intransitive verbs, like schlafen ‘to sleep’ (9.33 a), allow for an werden impersonal passive in which the nominative argument is dropped (see Section 9.5.1). In contrast, with many transitive verbs, like putzen ‘to clean’ (9.33 b), the werden passive shows a different diathesis in which the accusative is turned into a nominative (see Section 9.5.14).
| (9.33) | a. | Das Kind schläft. Jetzt wird geschlafen. |
| b. | Irgendjemand putzt das Haus. Das Haus wird geputzt. |
[9.41] There are many different such ‘repeated’ light-verb constructions. A recurring phenomenon, exemplified here with the light-verb construction with bleiben, is one in which intransitives show no diathesis (9.34 a), see Section 9.4.11, while transitives display an anticausative diathesis (9.34 b), see Section 9.5.10. This combination will be called absolutive here, calling on the ‘ergative/absolutive’ terminology as used in linguistic typology. This affinity of intransitive subjects to transitive objects is also reminiscent of the unaccusative hypothesis discussed previously, which proposes that some intransitive subjects are underlyingly objects. However, these absolutive phenomena are not uniform in German grammar. Exactly which verbs are amenable for which constructions appears to be rather unpredictable (or maybe better: ‘lexically dependent’), and the survey in this chapter is proposed to be a step towards a more precise understanding the such constructional distributions.
| (9.34) | a. | Der Schlüssel verschwindet. Der Schlüssel bleibt verschwunden. |
| b. | Ich schließe den Schrank. Der Schrank bleibt geschlossen. |
[9.42] A recurrent topic of debate in German grammar is the question whether the different constructions with the auxiliary sein should be considered to be a single construction or not (cf. Thieroff 2007 for a summary of the debate). I will here distinguish four different constructions with sein that are all in complementary distribution (i.e. a specific verb can only occur in one of these):
[9.43] Because these constructions are in complementary distribution, I see no objection to consider them as one construction. However, there are also obvious differences, so splitting them up is likewise sensible. Whether one of these points of view is better than the other seems like a moot question to me. Both perspectives are useful.
| (9.35) | a. | Der Junge schläft ein. Der Junge ist eingeschlafen. |
| b. | Irgendjemand wäscht den Jungen. Der Junge ist gewaschen. |
|
| c. | Die Strafe erstaunt den Jungen. Der Junge ist erstaunt (über die Strafe). |
|
| d. | Der wache Junge … Der Junge ist wach. |
[9.44] Similarly, with opiniative light verbs wissen, glauben, sehen and finden there exist different diatheses depending on the valency of the main verb. These different constructions are clearly related, and I tend to consider them all to be special cases of the same underlying construction. The following diatheses are attested: first, an opinionator is added with intransitives like einschlafen ‘to fall asleep’ (9.36 a), see Section 9.6.1. Second, transitive verbs like aufheben ‘to preserve’ (9.36 b) are passivised before the opinionator is added Section 9.6.5.
| (9.36) | a. | Der Junge schläft ein. Der Großvater wusste den Jungen eingeschlafen. |
| b. | Das Archiv hebt den Nachlass auf. Der Großvater wusste den Nachlass im Archiv gut aufgehoben. |
[9.45] In contrast, the separation between structurally similar constructions becomes critical in cases in which there is no complementary distribution, instead even possible ambiguity. For example, there are two clearly different constructions of haben with a participle, and some verbs can occur in both, leading to possibly ambiguous sentences, exemplified here with schneiden ‘to cut’. First, there is the haben-Perfekt (9.37 a), see Section 9.4.8 and second the haben-Pertinenzdativ (9.37 b), see Section 9.5.20. There is a crucial difference here in who is doing the cutting.
| (9.37) | a. | Der Friseur hat (mir) die Haare geschnitten. |
| b. | Der Friseur hat die Haare geschnitten (bekommen). |
[9.46] An exceedingly complex situation occurs with the light verb machen, which induces many different diatheses depending on the main verb. Fehrmann (2018) extensively describes machen + adjective constructions, but he seems to have ignored the complex situation with participles. There seem to be at least the following possibilities:
| (9.38) | a. | Der Verlust betrifft mich. Der Verlust macht mich betroffen. |
| b. | Ich begehre den Job wegen der Bezahlung. Die Bezahlung macht den Job begehrt. |
|
| c. | Die Polizei verdächtigt ihn. Er macht sich bei der Polizei verdächtigt. |
|
| d. | Ich eigne mich durch meine Qualifikation für den Job. Die Qualifikation macht mich geeignet für den Job. |
|
| e. | Er vergisst den Verlust. Ich mache den Verlust (bei ihm) vergessen. |
[9.47] Because of the similarity between participles and adjectives, it is instructive to turn the tables and investigate light-verb constructions with lexical adjectives like schmutzig ‘dirty’ or offen ‘open’. Most light verbs are used identically with adjective and participle constructions, but there are few interesting differences.
[9.48] The verbs sein, werden, bleiben, known as kopulaverben in German grammar (e.g. Duden-Grammatik 2009: 416), can be used both with participles and adjectives (9.39). However, note that the meaning of the construction werden differs crucially between the two. With participles, the werden construction is of course a passive (see Section 9.5.14), while it is more of a future with adjectives (9.39 c), cf. the werden + Infinitiv in Section 10.4.2.
| (9.39) | a. | Mein Fahrrad ist schmutzig. |
| b. | Mein Fahrrad bleibt schmutzig. | |
| c. | Mein Fahrrad wird schmutzig. |
[9.49] The appearance verbs wirken, (er)scheinen and aussehen (called “Askription” by Lasch 2016: Chapter 7) likewise can be used both with participles and adjectives (9.40) with no apparent differences between the two.
| (9.40) | a. | Mein Fahrrad wirkt schmutzig. |
| b. | Mein Fahrrad scheint schmutzig. | |
| c. | Mein Fahrrad erscheint schmutzig. | |
| d. | Mein Fahrrad sieht schmutzig aus. |
[9.50] The light verbs geben (with obligatory reflexive pronoun) can be used with participles and adjectives without any apparent differences (9.41).
| (9.41) | a. | Er ist weltoffen. |
| b. | Er gibt sich weltoffen. |
[9.51] The light verbs machen, lassen, halten and finden are both used with adjectives and participles. With adjectives they all induce a novative alternation, i.e. a new subject role is added (see paragraph 2.98). However, with participles they lead to different kinds of diatheses.
| (9.42) | a. | Ich finde mein Fahrrad schmutzig. Ich finde das Projekt gescheitert. |
| b. | Ich lasse die Tür offen. Ich lasse die Tür geschlossen. |
|
| c. | Ich halte den Kaffee warm. Ich halte die Tür geschlossen. |
|
| d. | Ich mache mein Fahrrad schmutzig. Der Verlust macht mich betroffen. |
[9.52] The combination of haben with adjectives (9.43) does not show any relationship to the haben + Partizip perfect. However, it is possible to draw a connection to the other haben + Partizip construction, namely the dative passive (9.43 b), see Section 9.5.20. In both constructions the new subject (sie) is an experiencer, who is also the possessor of the object (Rechnung, Haare).
| (9.43) | a. | Sie hat noch eine Rechnung offen. (= Ihre Rechnung ist noch offen.) |
| b. | Sie hat die Haare schön. (= Ihre Haare sind schön.) |
|
| c. | Sie hat die Haare geschnitten. (= Ihre Haare sind geschnitten.) |
[9.53] Finally, the light verbs gehören, sehen, wissen and glauben can be combined with participles, but they do not seem to occur with adjectives.
[9.54] Most participles are regularly derived from verb stems that allow for finite verb forms. However, there are various participles that are not directly related to a finite verb, but that still occur in light verb constructions. Parallel to the ‘.3’ sections in earlier chapters, I will discuss here various different kinds of participles without finite counterpart:
[9.55] Some participles have obtained a specialised idiomatic meaning, different from the finite use of the verb. For example verwenden ‘to plead for’ with participle verwandt (9.44 a) has given rise to a completely separate participle verwandt ‘to be related’ (9.44 b). Note that there is also a separate verb verwenden meaning ‘to utilise’ with a different participle verwendet.
| (9.44) | a. | Er hat sich sehr für die Einrichtung eines Spielplatzes verwandt. |
| b. | Wir sind verwandt. |
[9.56] Similarly idiomatic are the participles verrückt ‘crazy’ from verrücken ‘to relocate’ (9.45 a) and verklemmt ‘prudish’ from verklemmen ‘to get jammed’ (9.45 b)
| (9.45) | a. | Er ist verrückt. |
| b. | Er ist verklemmt. |
[9.57] The participle bekannt ‘known’ is morphologically derived from bekennen ‘to confess’, although the meaning of the participle is related to kennen ‘to know’, which has a participle gekannt.
| (9.46) | a. | Jeder kennt den Schauspieler. |
| b. | Der Schauspieler ist bekannt/*gekannt |
[9.58] Attested Participles
[9.59] Notes
[9.60] Eisenberg (2006b: 201) also mentions entsetzt ‘appalled’ as an idiomatic participle, but the Verb entsetzen ‘to appall’ seems to be perfectly possible as a finite verb (9.47 a). The intended meaning from Eisenberg is then simply the anticausative Zustandspassiv (9.47 b).
| (9.47) | a. | Der Anblick entsetzt ihn. Der Anblick hat ihn entsetzt. |
| b. | Er ist entsetzt. |
[9.61] Likewise, dwds mentions verfroren as an idiomatic participle, but the verb verfrieren ‘to freeze’ is attested, though rare (9.48).
| (9.48) | a. | Bei Wind verfrieren die Wangen in kürzester Zeit.68 |
| b. | Meine Wangen sind verfroren. |
[9.62] There exist various German words that are clearly participles in form, but their stems are nouns (and not finite verbs). This might look like conversion, but it is not. The wholesale (zero-marked) conversion of nouns into finite verbs is attested in German (e.g. ölen ‘to apply oil’ from the noun Öl, ‘oil’), but this is far from as productive as in English.
[9.63] In contrast, the participles that are of interest here do not exist as finite verbs, i.e. there are no German verbs blumen ‘to put flowers on something’ or flügeln ‘to put wings on something, but the participles geblümt ’flowered’ (from noun Blume ‘flower’) and gefügelt ‘winged’ (from noun Flügel ‘wing’) are perfectly possible. Semantically, the noun-based participles express a kind of possessive relationship ‘subject exists with noun’, for example geblümt means ‘to have flowers applied to it’.
[9.64] Further, various participles are derived from nouns using verb prefixes be- and ver-. As discussed earlier, it is a relatively widespread phenomenon for finite verbs to be derived from nominal stems using these prefixes (see Section 7.2.3). For example, the verb vergiften ‘to poison’ is derived from the noun Gift ‘poison’ without any verb like giften in between (9.49 a,b). As a consequence, the participle vergiftet also exist (9.49 c).
| (9.49) | a. | * | Sie giftet ihn. |
| b. | Sie vergiftet ihn. | ||
| c. | Er ist vergiftet. |
[9.65] In contrast, the participle verhasst ‘hated’ is derived from the noun Hass ‘hate’ and the verb hassen ‘to hate’ (9.51 a). However, the verb verhassen cannot be used as a finite verb (9.51 b), only as a participle (9.51 c).
| (9.50) | a. | Sie hasst ihn. | |
| b. | * | Sie verhasst ihn. | |
| c. | Er ist verhasst. |
[9.66] Attested Participles
[9.67] Notes
[9.68] The finite verb zacken ‘to produce indentation’ is also attested, though rare (9.51 a), so gezackt might not be a good example of a participle without finite usage. In contrast, the verb schweifen ‘to ramble’ exists (9.51 b), but is semantically not directly related to the participle geschweift ‘curled’. Both seem independently derived from the noun Schweif ‘bushy tail’. The same holds for the participle gestreift ‘striped’ and the verb streifen ‘to roam, to streak’, which are probably both independently related to the noun Streifen ‘strip, band’.
| (9.51) | a. | Die Streifen zackten sich über Schuhe, Bänke, Tische, Mäntel, Bettgitter.69 |
| b. | Man schweifte wie auf einem riesigen Schuttplatz jenseits der Ränder der bekannten Welt.70 |
[9.69] The participle gelaunt (from noun Laune ‘mood’) and geregnet (from noun Regen, ‘rain’) obligatorily needs a manner adverbial, see Section 8.3.1.
| (9.52) | a. | Ich bin gut gelaunt. |
| b. | Ich bin nass geregnet. |
[9.70] Word like einverstanden ‘agreed’ (9.53 a) looks morphologically like a regular participle from a verb einverstehen. However, that verb does not exist (9.53 b), only the non-prefixed verb verstehen exists. Latzel (1977a: 79-80) discussed various examples with the preverb aus- and Rothstein (2007a: 162) lists examples with the preverb an- that only occur in construction with light verb kommen (see Section 9.4.15). Participles with preverbs that do not have a corresponding finite verb appear to be a common phenomenon and the participles listed here are only to be taken as examples.
| (9.53) | a. | Ich bin einverstanden. | |
| b. | * | Ich verstehe ein. |
[9.71] Attested Participles
[9.72] The combination of the light verbs haben and sein with a participle is traditionally considered to be a single tense/aspect construction called perfekt in German grammatical terminology. Given the latinate origin of much of modern grammatical theory, the wish for a German equivalent of the inflectional Latin perfectum is perfectly understandable. However, it is far from obvious that this Perfekt is a unified construction in German.
[9.73] The most intriguing argument in favour of a unified Perfekt construction is that every verb stem in German has an epithetical construction consisting of haben or sein with a participle. In other words, every stem that allows for finite person/number agreement (i.e. ich kauf-e, du kauf-st, er kauf-t, etc.) also has at least one of the two constructions haben + Partizip or sein + Partizip without any change in role mapping (i.e. without diathesis). Such an universal applicability of a construction to all verbs is otherwise only attested (arguably) with Modalverben (see Section 10.4.2 and subsequent sections). All the hundreds of other constructions discussed in this book always have a restricted domain of application (cf. Section 1.3.4). The universal applicability of the Perfekt is known to have been developed in the late Middle Ages and was only completed in the 16th century with the development of a haben + Partizip construction for Modalverben (Fischer 2020: 258).71 However, examples of a Perfekt with various Modalverben are still really rare in German. For example, in the dwds corpus only a few examples of haben gedurft are attested, almost exclusively with haben in the conjunctive.
[9.74] In contrast, there are also various arguments against a unified Perfekt construction in German. First, there is a sizeably group of intransitive verbs that allow for both the haben and the sein construction without any role-marking changes. There are intransitives with two possibilities, like splittern ‘to splinter, to sliver’ (9.54), see Section 9.4.3, and there is a special kind of intransitives that take haben with reflexive pronouns, but sein without reflexive pronouns, like verspäten ‘to be late’ (9.55), see Section 9.4.4.
| (9.54) | a. | Das Glas ist (in tausend Scherben) gesplittert. |
| b. | Das Holz hat (zu leicht) gesplittert. |
| (9.55) | a. | Der Zug hat sich verspätet. |
| b. | Der Zug ist verspätet. |
[9.75] Second, transitive verbs with an accusative argument regularly allow for both a haben and a sein construction, although with a change in role-marking. So, the same verbal stem regularly occurs with both constructions, though with different diatheses. Typically, transitive verbs with an accusative take haben + Partizip without any role-marking changes (see Section 9.4.8, exceptions in Section 9.4.9). In contrast, a passive-like diathesis is induced when used with sein + Partizip, either a Zustandspassiv, like with schreiben ‘to write’ (9.56), see Section 9.5.15, or an Erlebnispassiv, like with verärgern ‘to displease’ (9.57), see Section 9.5.21. There are only very few exceptions that do not allow this diathesis, like hören ‘to hear’ (9.58).
| (9.56) | a. | Er schreibt das Buch. Er hat das Buch geschrieben. |
| b. | Das Buch ist geschrieben. |
| (9.57) | a. | Die Nachricht verärgert den Leser. Die Nachricht hat den Leser verärgert. |
| b. | Der Leser ist über die Nachricht verärgert. |
| (9.58) | a. | Sie hört die Trompete. Sie hat die Trompete gehört. |
|
| b. | * | Die Trompete ist gehört. |
[9.76] Third, and most importantly, for all those cases in which multiple options are available, the meaning of the haben + Partizip construction can be clearly distinguished from meaning of the sein + Partizip construction. Roughly speaking, the haben + Partizip construction describes a completed continuous situation (completive), i.e. the endpoint of a continuous process, while the sein + Partizip construction describes the result of a change (resultative), i.e. it describes the resulting state after some kind of change-of-state. There exist a long discussion about this difference, and there are various diagnostic differences, like the usage of temporal adverbials (see Section 9.4.3 and Section 9.4.4).
[9.77] It is important to note that this semantic differentiation only holds for those verbs that allow for both the haben + Partizip and the sein + Partizip constructions. The verbs that only allow for one of the two constructions (including verbs with nominative and dative arguments) cannot be separated along such easy semantic lines. For example, there does not appear to be any restriction on temporal adverbials with verbs like lachen ‘to laugh’ with only a haben Perfect (9.59), nor with flüchten ‘to flee’ with only a sein Perfect (9.60).
| (9.59) | a. | Die Schüler haben gestern gelacht. |
| b. | Die Schüler haben schon lange gelacht. |
| (9.60) | a. | Der Gefangene ist gestern geflüchtet. |
| b. | Der Gefangene ist schon lange geflüchtet. |
[9.78] Because of these three differences, I prefer to consider the haben and sein Perfects as two different constructions, for example called Prozessperfekt (haben) and Zustandsperfekt (sein) in German. To adhere to tradition, both are still called Perfekt. The first part of the name Zustandsperfekt conjures up the other sein + Partizip construction traditionally called Zustandspassiv (see Section 9.5.15).
[9.79] Many intransitive verbs only have a Perfect with the auxiliary haben, like lachen ‘to laugh’ (9.61 a). Typically, the participle of such verbs cannot be used adnominally (9.61 b), see Section 9.2.3, but the impersonal werden passive is possible (9.61 c), see Section 9.5.1.
| (9.61) | a. | Die Schüler lachen. Die Schüler haben gelacht. |
|
| b. | * | Die gelachte Schüler sind froh. | |
| c. | Heute wurde viel gelacht. |
[9.80] Although verbs with a haben Perfect are often though of as ‘agentive’ verbs, there are many non-agentive verbs, for example describing bodily processes (like bluten ‘to bleed’) or bodily sensations (like jucken ’to itch) that also take haben in the Perfect.
[9.81] Attested Verbs
[9.82] There exist also a large group of intransitive verbs that only allow for a Perfect with the auxiliary sein, like flüchten ‘to flee’ (9.62 a). In contrast to the intransitives with haben, the verbs with sein allow for an adnominal usage of the participle (9.62 b), but do not (easily) allow for an impersonal passive (9.62 c).
| (9.62) | a. | Der Gefangene flüchtet. Der Gefangene ist geflüchtet. |
|
| b. | Der geflüchtete Gefangene wurde wieder gefasst. | ||
| c. | ? | Heute wird geflüchtet. |
[9.83] There is a strong semantic tendency for the intransitives with sein to be more ‘patientive’. Many of the verbs describe actions that are not performed deliberately, but more or less happen to the subject (e.g. sterben ‘to die’, fallen ‘to fall’ or scheitern ‘to fail’). However, there are also many verbs that do not fit into this semantic characterisation (e.g. flüchten ‘to flee’, gehen ‘to go’ or abreisen ‘to depart’). There seems to be only a restricted set of monomorphemic verbs with a sein Perfect, but a much larger number of verbs with preverbs e.g. 7.4.5 and Section 7.7.9.
[9.84] Attested Verbs
[9.85] Examples
[9.86] There is a surprisingly large group of intransitive verbs that allow for both a haben and a sein Perfect. In most of these verbs there is a clear semantic difference between the constructions with these auxiliaries. In general, these verbs allow for both a ‘completed process’ interpretation (completive, taking a haben Perfect) and a ‘new state after change’ interpretation (resultative, taking a sein Perfect). In this section I have collected intransitive verbs that allow for both auxiliaries (see also Hinze & Köpcke 2007; Gillmann 2016: Ch. 5). Additionally, the next Section 9.4.4 discusses verbs that allow for an intransitive haben Perfect with a reflexive pronoun and an intransitive sein Perfect without a reflexive pronoun.
[9.87] A large group of haben/sein verbs describe natural processes, like splittern ‘to sliver’ (9.63 a) or schimmeln ‘to mold’ (9.63 b). Such natural processes can both be used to describe a process (taking a haben Perfect) and the result of this process (taking a sein Perfect).
| (9.63) | a. | Das Glas ist (in tausend Scherben) gesplittert. Das Holz hat (zu leicht) gesplittert. |
| b. | Das Obst ist (komplett) gefault. Das Obst hat (vor sich hin) gefault. |
[9.88] A similar situation is attested with a few verbs describing mental states, like verzweifeln ‘to despair’. Interpreted as a state, such verbs take a sein Perfect (9.64 a). However, some of such verbs also allow an interpretation as a process leading the this state, and then take a haben Perfect (9.64 b).
| (9.64) | a. | Sie ist ganz verzweifelt. |
| b. | Und ich steh hier am teuflischen 17. Loch, wo so viele verzweifelt haben.72 |
[9.89] One widely applicable diagnostic is the different compatibility of both constructions with temporal adverbial constituents (see Section 9.2.5). The endpoint in a process (i.e. completive) is consistent with a punctual past temporal adverbial like gestern ‘yesterday’ or vor zwei Wochen ‘two weeks ago’ (9.65). In contrast, the new state after a change (i.e. resultative) is consistent with a durative perfect temporal adverbial like schon lange ‘already for a long time’ or seit zwei Wochen ‘since two weeks’ (9.66).
| (9.65) | a. | Der Zug hat sich gestern verspätet. | |
| b. | * | Der Zug hat sich schon lange verspätet. |
| (9.66) | a. | * | Der Zug ist gestern verspätet. |
| b. | Der Zug ist schon lange verspätet. |
[9.90] Exactly the same semantic differentiation is also attested with nominative/accusative verbs like verärgern ‘to displease’. These verbs take a haben + Partizip Perfect with a completive meaning that allow for punctual adverbials (9.67). Most of these verbs also have a sein + Partizip Passive-like construction with a resultative meaning that allow for a durative adverbial (9.68).
| (9.67) | a. | Die Nachricht hat den Leser vor zwei Wochen verärgert. | |
| b. | * | Die Nachricht hat den Leser seit zwei Wochen verärgert. |
| (9.68) | a. | * | Der Leser ist vor zwei Wochen über die Nachricht verärgert. |
| b. | Der Leser ist seit zwei Wochen über die Nachricht verärgert. |
[9.91] Different diagnostics are needed for movement verbs. Many verbs of movement like tanzen ‘to dance’ (9.69 a) or klettern ‘to climb’ (9.69 b) allow for both a haben and a sein Perfect. The haben Perfect can be interpreted as the ‘regular’ Perfect for movement verbs (9.69 a). By being verbs of movement, their meaning is inherently a process, which fits in with the general principle of the haben Perfect describing the endpoint of a continuous process. In contrast, the usage with sein has a transgressive meaning in which a border is crossed (9.69 b). By crossing this border, the verb in effect describes the endpoint of the change-of-state performed by the movement. This difference between haben and sein is mirrored in the grammatical case that is used with so-called Wechselprepositionen like in and auf. Such prepositions take an accusative case with a change-of-state, but a dative case when there is no change-of-state. This fits perfectly with the two possible perfects, i.e. the transgressive sein Perfekt, necessitating an accusative den (9.69 b), and the continuous haben Perfect, taking a dative dem (9.69 c).
| (9.69) | a. | Ich habe getanzt. Der Junge hat geklettert. |
| b. | Ich bin in den Raum (hinein) getanzt. Der Junge ist auf den Berg (hinauf) geklettert. |
|
| c. | Ich habe in dem Raum (herum) getanzt. Der Junge hat auf dem Berg (herum) geklettert |
[9.92] Another crucial difference between sein and haben with movement verbs is that the sein Perfect obligatorily needs a directional phrase like nach Hause (9.70 a,b), while the haben Perfect does not allow for such a directional phrase (9.71 a,b). This difference offers a good explanation for the peculiar restrictions on the adnominal usage of the participle of movement verbs. Participles of movement verbs can only be used adnominally when combined with a directional phrase (9.70 c), as is expected for an intransitive verb with sein (cf. Section 9.2.3). In contrast, without a directional phrase the adnominal usage is not possible, as is expected for an intransitive verb with a haben Perfect.
| (9.70) | a. | * | Der Schüler ist gelaufen. |
| b. | Der Schüler ist nach Hause gelaufen. | ||
| c. | Der nach Hause gelaufene Schüler weint. |
| (9.71) | a. | Der Schüler hat gelaufen. | |
| b. | * | Der Schüler hat nach Hause gelaufen. | |
| c. | * | Der gelaufene Schüler weint. |
[9.93] There are a few further verbs that take a haben Perfect, but also allow for a sein Perfect in transgressive situations. For example, the verb einbrechen ‘to commit burglary’ allows for both (9.72). Although this verb is not a typical movement verb, the dative/accusative case change with Wechselprepositionen like in is also observed here.
| (9.72) | a. | Die Diebe sind in den Tresor eingebrochen. |
| b. | Die Diebe haben im Tresor eingebrochen. |
[9.94] Many verbs that describe a manner-of-motion can be used in different Perfect constructions (cf. Section 5.8.2). For example, a verb like wackeln ‘to shake, to wiggle’ can be used as a verb performing the action, and then it takes a haben Perfect (9.73 a). Alternatively, it can be used to describe a manner-of-motion, and then it takes a sein Perfect (9.73 b).
| (9.73) | a. | Er wackelt mit dem Schwanz. Er hat mit dem Schwanz gewackelt. |
| b. | Er wackelt durch den Garten. Er ist durch den Garten gewackelt. |
[9.95] A similar phenomenon can be observed with some weather verbs, like stürmen ‘to storm’ (see Section 5.8.3). When used as a description of a type of weather it takes a haben Perfect (9.74 a). However, when used (metaphorically) as a manner-of-movement description it takes a sein Perfect (9.74 b).
| (9.74) | a. | Es stürmt. Es hat gestürmt. |
| b. | Sie stürmen in den Saal. Sie sind in den Saal gestürmt. |
[9.96] Anticausative verbs like heilen ‘to heal’ (see Section 4.5.5) allow for both an intransitive sein Zustandspassiv (9.75 a) and a haben Perfect of the intransitive (9.75 b). In effect, this results in intransitive constructions with both haben + Partizip and sein + Partizip. A similar situation is attested with some of the locative anticausative verbs, like kleben ‘to stick to’ (9.76), see Section 5.5.10.
| (9.75) | a. | Der Doktor heilt die Wunde. Der Doktor hat die Wunde geheilt. Die Wunde ist geheilt. |
| b. | Die Wunde heilt. Die Wunde hat geheilt. |
| (9.76) | a. | Ich klebe den Teller an den Tisch. Ich habe den Teller an den Tisch geklebt. Der Teller ist am Tisch geklebt. |
| b. | Der Teller klebt am Tisch. Der Teller hat am Tisch geklebt. |
[9.97] Attested Verbs
[9.98] Examples
[9.99] Notes
[9.100] The verb schimmeln with sein appears to be old-fashioned (9.77 a). Likewise, intransitive altern with haben is not in current use anymore (9.77 b).
| (9.77) | a. | Ich weiss nicht, warum dies Brot geschimmelt ist.75 |
| b. | Sie fand, daß er in der letzten Zeit stark gealtert hatte.76 |
[9.101] Verbs verbs with an obligatory reflexive pronoun (see Section 6.3.1 and subsequent sections) have a haben Perfect, like verspäten ‘to be late’ (9.78 a,b). Many (but not all) have an alternative sein Perfect without reflexive pronoun (9.78 c). This last construction is probably best analysed as a special kind of Zustandspassiv Section 9.5.15. In effect, there are two different Perfect constructions, one with haben and a reflexive pronoun (9.78 b) and one with sein without a reflexive pronoun (9.78 c).
| (9.78) | a. | Der Zug verspätet sich. |
| b. | Der Zug hat sich verspätet. | |
| c. | Der Zug ist verspätet. |
[9.102] The application of these two intransitive Perfects correlates with a difference in the temporal interpretation (cf. Section 9.2.5). The haben Perfekt is consistent with a punctual temporal adverbial like gestern ‘yesterday’ (9.79 a) but not with a durative seit zwei Stunden ‘since two hours’ (9.79 b). The situation is reversed with the sein Perfekt (9.79 c,d).
| (9.79) | a. | Der Zug hat sich gestern verspätet. | |
| b. | * | Der Zug hat sich seit drei Stunden verspätet. | |
| c. | * | Der Zug ist gestern verspätet. | |
| d. | Der Zug ist seit drei Stunden verspätet. |
[9.103] A similar situation arises with reflexive anticausative verbs like schließen ‘to close’ (see Section 6.5.2). Such verbs occur in transitive constructions, which allow for an intransitive Zustandspassiv with sein (9.80 a). Alternatively, such verbs have an intransitive usage with a reflexive pronouns with a haben Perfect (9.80 b). In effect, there are two different Perfect constructions for the intransitive usage, one with haben and a reflexive pronoun (9.80 b) and one with sein without a reflexive pronoun (9.80 a).
| (9.80) | a. | Ich schließe den Schrank. Der Schrank ist geschlossen. |
| b. | Der Schrank schließt sich. Der Schrank hat sich geschlossen |
[9.104] A similar situation also occurs with many endoreflexive verbs (though not all, cf. Section 6.7.1) like ausziehen ‘to undress’ (9.81 a), resulting in both a reflexive haben Perfect (9.81 b) and a non-reflexive sein Perfect/Passiv (9.81 c).
| (9.81) | a. | Der Patient zieht sich aus. |
| b. | Der Patient hat sich ausgezogen. | |
| c. | Der Patient ist ausgezogen. |
[9.105] Likewise, verbs that allow for both a reflexive conversive (Reflexiv Erlebnispassiv (Section 6.5.8) and a sein Passive (Zustandspassiv, Section 9.5.15) have both a sein and a haben intransitive Perfect. For example aufregen ‘to upset’ is a transitive verb (9.82 a). This verb allows for a reflexive conversive, which results in a haben intransitive Perfect with a reflexive pronoun (9.82 b). However, there is also a sein Perfect without reflexive pronoun (9.82 c), which is possibly best analysed as the sein + Partizip Passive of the transitive (9.82 a).
| (9.82) | a. | Der Lärm regt ihn auf. Der Lärm hat ihn aufgeregt. |
| b. | Er regt sich auf (über den Lärm). Er hat sich aufgeregt (über den Lärm). |
|
| c. | Er ist aufgeregt (wegen den Lärm). |
[9.106] Attested Verbs
[9.107] Examples
[9.108] Verbs with a dative argument are strictly split between sein and haben. There do not appear to be any verbs that allow for both. The grammatical status of the datives is slightly different among these verbs (see Sections 4.3.4, 4.7.4, 5.7.8, 7.8.16 for detailed discussion). Similar to intransitives, the dative verbs with a haben Perfect, like antworten ‘to answer’ (9.83 a), do not allow for a construction with an adnominal participle (9.83 b), but the impersonal werden passive is possible (9.83 c).
| (9.83) | a. | Die Professorin hat dem Student geantwortet. | |
| b. | * | Der geantwortete Student ist zufrieden. | |
| c. | Heute wird dem Student geantwortet. |
[9.109] Attested Verbs
[9.110] Similar to intransitives, the dative-verbs with sein, like gelingen ‘to succeed’ (9.84 a), all appear to allow a construction with an adnominal participle (9.84 b), while the impersonal werden passive is not possible (9.84 c).
| (9.84) | a. | Das Gemälde ist mir gelungen. | |
| b. | Das gelungene Gemälde ist schön. | ||
| c. | * | Heute wird mir gelungen. |
[9.111] Attested Verbs
[9.112] Notes
[9.113] The verb folgen ‘to follow’ typically takes sein, but there appear to be incidental instances of haben (9.85 a), though this might be typical of a slightly different meaning ‘to obey’ (9.85 b). Similarly, the verb begegnen ‘to meet’ typically takes sein, but haben is attested (9.85 c).
| (9.85) | a. | […] wenn China und Nordkorea den Empfehlungen der Kommission gefolgt hätte.77 |
| b. | Das Kind hat seiner Mutter gefolgt. | |
| c. | Er nannte Beispiele, wie er während seiner Präsidentschaft Notständen begegnen mußte und begegnet habe.78 |
[9.114] Almost all verbs with governed prepositions take a haben Perfect. Only a small group of such verbs take a sein + Partizip Perfect, for example scheitern an ‘to fail’ (9.86 a). Only very few examples of obligatory local prepositions belong in this category, like eintreten ‘enter’ (9.86 b).
| (9.86) | a. | Ich scheitere an der Aufgabe. Ich bin an der Aufgabe gescheitert. |
| b. | Die Sportler treten in das Stadion ein. Die Sportler sind in das Stadion eingezogen. |
[9.115] Attested Verbs
[9.116] Examples
[9.117] Almost all transitive (nominative/accusative) verbs take a haben Perfect. However, the choice of light verb (i.e. haben or sein) is not linked to the lexical verb root, as there are many verbs that can be used both as an intransitive and as a transitive verb Section 4.6.2. With many such verbs, like laufen ‘to walk’ (9.87 a) or segeln ‘to sail’ (9.87 b), the intransitiv uses sein, while the transitiv uses haben.
| (9.87) | a. | Er ist durch die ganze Stadt gelaufen. Er hat den Marathon gelaufen |
| b. | Er ist mit dem Boot nach Korsika gesegelt. Er hat das Boot nach Korsika gesegelt. |
[9.118] Even stronger, almost all transitive verbs allow also for a sein Zustandspassiv (see Section 9.5.15 for only few exceptions). The effect is that a transitive verb like schreiben ‘to write’ can both be used with a haben + Partizip construction (‘Perfect’) and a sein + Partizip construction (‘Passive’). These are of course different diatheses, but the important point is that the lexical verb schreiben itself can be used both with sein and haben.
| (9.88) | a. | Er hat einen Brief geschrieben. |
| b. | Der Brief ist geschrieben. |
[9.119] There is only a very small group of transitive (nominative/accusative) verbs that use only sein in the Perfect, like angehen ‘to tackle’ or loswerden ‘to get rid of’ (cf. Grewendorf 1989: 9; Strobel 2008: 102, 107ff.).
| (9.89) | a. | Ich bin die Prüfung ruhig angegangen. |
| b. | Ich bin den Verfolger losgeworden. |
[9.120] Movement verbs with the preverbs ˈab- (in the meaning ‘along’) and ˈdurch- (‘through’ as separable Verbpartikel) appear to be quite productively in producing transitive verbs with a sein Perfect. For example, a verb like abkriechen ‘to crawl along’ does not appear in any German lexical resources, but can productively be created and seems quite naturally to take a perfect with sein (9.90 a). Similarly, the somewhat more widespread verb durchkriechen ‘to crawl through’ also takes sein in the Perfect (9.90 b).
| (9.90) | a. | Ich bin dann mit dem Messgerät auch nochmal das gesamte Fahrzeug abgekrochen.79 |
| b. | Sobald man das Loch durchgekrochen ist, hat man einen grandiosen Blick auf das schöne Gletscherpanorama.80 |
[9.121] Attested Verbs
[9.122] Examples
[9.123] Notes
[9.124] The verb laufen allows for both sein and haben in the intransitive (see Section 9.4.3), while also allowing for a resultative accusative (see [@Section 4.8.1]). Because of this both haben and sein appear possible in transitive constructions (9.91).
| (9.91) | a. | Ich habe den Marathon gelaufen. |
| b. | Ich bin den Marathon gelaufen. |
[9.125] The verbs aussehen, scheinen, erscheinen, wirken can be used with intransitive participles to describe the appearance of an event (9.92). Such constructions are analysed by Lasch (2016: 253ff.) as Askription mit modaler Relation. For the German grammatical discussion, I propose to use the latinate name apparitivperfekt from lat. apparere ‘to appear’. There is a close semantic connection to the sein Perfekt as shown by the compatibility with a durative temporal adverb like seit gestern (9.92 b). With the light verbs scheinen and erscheinen an experiencer dative is regularly attested (9.92 c). With transitive participles these constructions lead to an anticausative diathesis, see Section 9.5.11. This construction is discussed in more depth in that section.
| (9.92) | a. | Die Pflanze wächst. |
| b. | Die Pflanze scheint/wirkt seit gestern gewachsen. | |
| c. | Die Pflanze erscheint mir gewachsen. |
[9.126] Attested Verbs
[9.127] The following attested verbs are only illustrative examples taken from the data analysed by Lasch (2016).81 There are many more verbs possible in these constructions, but these lists present a good sample of the kind of verbs that are actually attested.
[9.128] The bleiben + Partizip construction can be used both with some transitive verbs leading to an anticausative diathesis (see Section 9.5.10), and with a few intransitives, but then without any diathesis. For example, verbs like verschwinden ‘to vanish, to go missing’ (9.93 a) or zufrieren ‘to freeze over’ (9.93 b) allow for this epithesis. There is a close connection to the sein + Partizip construction, though with an added notion of continuation.
| (9.93) | a. | Der Schlüssel verschwindet. Der Schlüssel bleibt verschwunden. |
| b. | Der Binnensee ist zugefroren. Weihnachten rückt näher, und der Binnensee bleibt zugefroren.82 |
[9.129] The bleiben + Partizip construction is only possible with verbs that also allow for a sein + Partizip construction, though far from all verbs allow for both. In general, it turns out to be far from easy to find many examples of bleiben + Partizip with intransitive verbs, suggesting that there are strong restrictions on the application of this construction. There is a strong semantic intuition that only reversible events allow for a bleiben + Partizip construction (Helbig & Buscha 2001: 163; Schlücker 2007: 152). However, examples are attested with clearly irreversible events like verbrennen ‘to burn’ (9.94 a) or punctual events like einschlafen ‘to fall asleep’ (9.94 b). The notion ‘reversibility’ is thus clearly not the whole explanation.
| (9.94) | a. | ? | Das Buch bleibt verbrannt. Die Haut bleibt verbrannt, egal wieviel Sonnenmilch sie dann auftragen.83 |
| b. | ? | Das Kind bleibt eingeschlafen. Alex rührt sich, aber bleibt eingeschlafen.84 |
[9.130] Attested Verbs
[9.131] Examples
[9.132] A widespread option for transitive verbs is to use the halten + Partizip construction to express the ongoing perseverance to prolong of the end state of the action, like with schließen ‘to close’ (9.95). The attested verbs listed below are only a few exemplary lexemes. This construction is applicable to a much wider group of verbs.
| (9.95) | a. | Er schließt die Tür. |
| b. | Er hält die Tür geschlossen. |
[9.133] Similar to the previous construction, the lassen + Partizip construction also can be used to express the causing the continuation of a state, like with einschalten ‘to turn on’ (9.96). Although this construction can be used with many different verbs, it turns out to be much more difficult to find suitable examples, which suggests that there are some additional constraints of the applicability of this construction.
| (9.96) | a. | Ich schalte den Fernseher ein. |
| b. | Ich lasse den Fernseher eingeschaltet. |
[9.134] Attested Verbs
[9.135] Examples
[9.136] The construction of the light verbs bekommen/kriegen + Partizip is widely discussed as a dative passive (see Section 9.5.19). However, transitive verbs without dative arguments can occur in this construction with a completely different ‘to be able to’ interpretation (9.97). This usage is discussed as the ‘bekommen-Konstruktion 2’ (Leirbukt 1997: 15-16) or as the resultative usage of bekommen/kriegen (Lenz 2013: 86, 238-239). Different from the dative passive, the light verb erhalten is not possible in this resultative construction.
| (9.97) | a. | Ich koche einen Tee. |
| b. | Ich bekomme schon noch einen Tee gekocht! (= Ich schaffe es schon noch einen Tee zu kochen.) |
[9.137] Attested Verbs
[9.138] Examples
[9.139] This is one of the various alternations that occur with machen + Partizip (see Section 9.2.7). With these experiencer verbs the alternation does not induce a diathesis.
| (9.98) | a. | Der Verlust betrifft mich. |
| b. | Der Verlust macht mich betroffen. |
[9.140] Attested Verbs
[9.141] Examples
[9.142] Notes
[9.143] There are various highly frequent examples of machen + Partizip in which the participle is not directly derived from a finite verb.
[9.144] The kommen + Partizip construction (9.99) is very similar to a main verb kommen ‘to come’ with a secondary adverbial predicate (9.100). Rothstein (Rothstein 2007a; Rothstein 2011) observed various structural differences between these constructions (see also the general discussion about participles as secondary predicates in Section 9.2.4). The kommen + Partizip construction, like with hüpfen ‘to hop’, can be identified by the impossibility of adding the negating un- prefix to the participle (9.99 b) and by the clause-final position of the participle (9.99 c,d). With secondary predicates like verkleidet ‘dressed up’ these syntactic characteristics are reversed (9.100 b-d).
| (9.99) | a. | Er kommt gehüpft. | |
| b. | * | Er kommt ungehüpft. | |
| c. | Er kommt aus seinem Zimmer gehüpft. | ||
| d. | * | Er kommt gehüpft aus seinem Zimmer. |
| (9.100) | a. | Er kommt verkleidet. | |
| b. | Er kommt unverkleidet. | ||
| c. | * | Er kommt aus seinen Zimmer verkleidet. | |
| d. | Er kommt verkleidet aus seinem Zimmer. |
[9.145] Rothstein also observes that these two different kinds of participles cannot be conjoined. A secondary predicate like verkleidet can be conjoined with adverbials like froh or springend (9.101 a). In contrast, this is not possible with gehüpft (9.101 b). Likewise verkleidet and gehüpft cannot be conjoined in a kommen + Partizip construction (9.101 c).
| (9.101) | a. | Er kommt froh, springend und verkleidet. | |
| b. | * | Er kommt froh, springend und gehüpft. | |
| c. | * | Er kommt verkleidet und gehüpft. |
[9.146] The kommen + Partizip construction is typically attested with intransitive verbs of movement like hüpfen. However, there are also examples of movement verbs with additional accusative (9.102 a) or dative (9.102 b) arguments. These possibilities need more in-depth investigation.
| (9.102) | a. | Er kommt den Berg herabgelaufen |
| b. | Er kam mir nachgelaufen |
[9.147] A widely-discussed special variant is the construction with participles with a preverb an- (see Eisenberg 2006b: 266; Rothstein 2007a: 162; Felfe 2012: 194, 241). Many of these an- verbs are only possible in this construction, i.e. they do not occur in finite clauses (Rothstein 2007a: 162). Besides with movement verbs, like reiten ‘to ride on horsback’ (9.103 a), the an- construction also occurs with sound production verbs, like keuchen ‘to pant’ (9.103 b). These two possibilities are related to the manner-of-movement construction, see Section 5.8.2, and the manner-of-speaking construction, see Section 4.8.1.
| (9.103) | a. | Er kommt angeritten. (= Er geht reitend irgendwohin.) |
| b. | Er kommt angekeucht. (= Er geht keuchend irgendwohin.) |
[9.148] The secondary predicate usage is also possible with transitive verbs, but then typically with an anticausative argument reversal (9.104).
| (9.104) | a. | Er packt das Geschenk ein. Das Geschenk kommt (un)eingepackt. |
| b. | Er kocht die Rüben. Die Rüben kommen (un)gekocht. |
|
| c. | Er schreibt einen Brief. Sein Brief kam schon fertig geschrieben bei mir auf den Tisch. |
[9.149] Attested Verbs
[9.150] Examples
[9.151] The nehmen + Partizip construction frequently occurs with fangen ‘to catch’ in the context of imprisonment (9.105). Incidental cases with other verbs are attested, but these seem to be highly unusual.
| (9.105) | a. | Er fängt den Dieb. |
| b. | Er nimmt den Dieb gefangen. |
[9.152] Attested Verbs
[9.153] Examples
[9.154] The setzen + Partizip construction appears to be only possible with the verb fangen ‘to catch’ in the context of imprisonment (9.106).
| (9.106) | a. | Er fängt den Dieb. |
| b. | Er setzt den Dieb gefangen. |
[9.155] Attested Verbs
[9.156] To call the diatheses in this section ‘passive’ is actually a misnomer, because there is no promotion of an argument to subject status. Also the retention of the original subject is mostly not possible. The categorisation of diatheses as followed in this work would suggest that verbative would be a more suitable term (seeSection 2.7.2). However, because the actual constructions (using light verbs werden, sein or gehören) shows a parallel to the real passives, the widespread use of the name unpersönslicher Passiv in the German grammatical tradition is retained here.
[9.157] The werden + Partizip impersonal passive is a widely discussed phenomenon in German grammar that occurs with some intransitive verbs (9.107 a,b). A special and very atypical characteristic of this diathesis is that there is no grammatical subject expressed. Typically in German, when a subject is dropped, then a valency-simulating pronoun es is inserted (see Section 2.2.3). However, in this diathesis any occurring pronoun es is only position-simulating (i.e. it occurs when the first position of the sentence, i.e. the Vorfeld, is empty). In contrast, when the first position is filled, the pronoun es is absent (9.107 b).
[9.158] This diathesis has become famous in grammatical discussion because of the claimed correlation with unaccusativity (see Section 9.2.6). Basically, the claim is that there is a correlation between the sein/haben selection in the Perfect and the possibility of the werden impersonal passive. Concretely, the claim is that (agentive) intransitive verbs with haben allow for the impersonal passive (9.107 a.b), while (patientive) intransitive verbs with sein do not (9.107 c,d).
| (9.107) | a. | Das kleine Kind schläft. Das kleine Kind hat geschlafen |
|
| b. | Es wird jetzt geschlafen. Jetzt wird (*es) geschlafen. |
||
| c. | Das kleine Kind schläft ein. Das kleine Kind ist eingeschlafen. |
||
| d. | * | Jetzt wird eingeschlafen. |
[9.159] Although there indeed seems to be a tendency here, there are many counterexamples. For example, with verbs with haben + Partizip like lügen ‘to lie’, jucken ‘to itch’ or blühen ‘to blossom’ it appears to be neigh impossible to use an impersonal passive. Possible examples are attested only with additional modal verbs like können or dürfen (9.108). In contrast, intransitive verbs with sein mostly do not allow for the impersonal passive, though examples can be found rather easily in corpora (9.109). This phenomenon clearly needs more in-depth corpus research.
| (9.108) | a. | In den Rieselfeldern kann ungehemmt gestunken und gelärmt werden.96 |
| b. | Im Gericht gibt es Fragen, bei denen gelügt werden darf.97 |
| (9.109) | a. | Lange Zeit weiß niemand - Patrick eingeschlossen - wovor hier eigentlich geflohen wird.98 |
| b. | Außerdem: Wie brutal ist das Betrachten eines Regenbogens, wenn nebenan krepiert wird?99 | |
| c. | Auch 2001 soll mit zweistelliger Rate weiter gewachsen werden.100 | |
| d. | In meiner Umgebung wird nicht gestorben.101 |
[9.160] In some specific contexts this impersonal construction also seems possible for transitive verbs with accusative arguments like überarbeiten ‘to rework’ (9.110 a) or even ditransitive verbs like geben ’to give (9.110 b). However, note that in all such cases it appears to be impossible to retain any of the non-subject arguments, so these impersonal passives can be analysed as being stacked on top of an action focus diathesis (see Section 8.7.1) dropping the accusative role and leading to an intransitive verb.
| (9.110) | a. | Ich überarbeite den Aufsatz. Morgen wird überarbeitet! |
|
| b. | Ich schenke dir die Bücher. Geschenkt wird erst morgen. |
||
| c. | * | Erst morgen wird dir geschenkt. |
[9.161] There is a recurrent usage of the term Reflexivpassiv in the German grammatical literature (e.g. Eisenberg 2006a: 131; Lasch 2016: 119). This does not appear to be a special diathesis, but rather a side-effect of an impersonal passive stacked on top of any construction with a reflexive pronoun. For example, verbs with obligatory reflexive pronouns retain this reflexive pronoun in an impersonal passive, like konzentrieren ‘to concentrate’ (9.111 a), see Section 6.3.1. Also, sentence constructions that include a reflexive pronoun because of another diathesis can be used with an impersonal passive (i.e. stacking of diatheses). For example kümmern ‘to worry, to take care’ shows a conversive diathesis with an reflexive pronoun (see Section 6.5.8) and retains this reflexive pronoun in an impersonal passive (9.111 b). Similarly, regular ‘self-inflicting’ reflexive constructions retain the reflexive pronoun in an impersonal passive (9.111 c). In summary, the Reflexivpassiv is not a separate phenomenon and the term should preferably not be used.
| (9.111) | a. | Die Regierung hat sich konzentriert auf die systemrelevanten Banken. Zunächst solle sich auf die systemrelevanten Banken konzentriert werden.102 |
| b. | Ich kümmere mich darum. Es wird sich jetzt endlich darum gekümmert. |
|
| c. | Ich rasiere mich. Heute wird sich rasiert. |
[9.162] Many, but not all, verbs with governed prepositions (but without accusative argument, cf. Section 5.7.1) appear to allow for an impersonal passive, like warten auf ‘to wait for’ or arbeiten an ‘to work on’ (9.112). Note that these verbs all take a haben + Partizip Perfekt. Although it seems possible to retain the original subject as a von prepositional phrase, I have not been able to find good examples of such subject retention.
| (9.112) | a. | Auf dem Professor wurde gewartet. |
| b. | An dem Aufsatz wurde gearbeitet. |
[9.163] Many, but not all, verbs that allow for a reflexive conversive diathesis, like empören ‘to appal’ or aufregen ‘to upset’ (9.113), cf. Section 6.5.8, also allow for a impersonal passive in the reflexive usage.
| (9.113) | a. | Über die Zerstörung der Schöpfung […] wird sich empört.103 |
| b. | In braver Einigkeit wird sich darüber aufgeregt, dass die Debattenkultur in Deutschland zu lahm, zu konsensuell, zu träge geworden sei.104 |
[9.164] Attested Verbs
[9.165] Governed preposition verbs (see Section 5.7.1)
[9.166] Reflexive conversive verbs (see Section 6.5.8)
[9.167] Examples
[9.168] Only a small subset of all verbs with a dative argument allow for an impersonal passive. Although this appears to be slightly more common for verbs with a haben Perfect, like entsprechen ‘to conform’ or helfen ‘to help’ (9.114), cf. Section 9.4.5, there are also verbs with a sein Perfect that allow for an impersonal passive, like enfliehen ‘to flee’ or beitreten ‘to join’ (9.115), cf. Section 9.4.6.
| (9.114) | a. | Seiner Bitte wird entsprochen. |
| b. | Den Eltern wurde geholfen. |
| (9.115) | a. | Dem Gefängnis wird entflohen. |
| b. | Dem Verein wird beigetreten. |
[9.169] Attested Verbs
[9.170] Examples
[9.171] It appears to be impossible for intransitives to be used in an sein + Partizip impersonal passive. This section is only included to discuss the theoretical possibility of this construction, because there is a curious parallel with other impersonal constructions. Impersonal constructions with light verbs werden, sein and gehören occur with additional governed prepositions or datives (see the next sections), but a parallel construction with sein is (apparently) not attested for ‘real’ intransitives (9.116).
| (9.116) | a. | * | Es ist geschlafen. |
| b. | ? | Während dem Protest ist viel gehupt. |
[9.172] Such constructions only seem to be possible with an additional worden (9.117), which is effectively a stack of an impersonal werden + Partizip passive with a sein + Partizip perfect (with the participle of werden showing up as the idiosyncratic form werden).
| (9.117) | a. | Da ist geschrien worden. |
| b. | Vier Jahre ist geschlafen worden, jetzt sollen wir alles in vier Tagen machen.110 |
[9.173] It turns out to be astonishingly hard, but not impossible, to find examples of sein impersonal passives with governed prepositions, like e.g. with denken (9.118 a). Constructions with an additional worden are widespread, but those are stacks of werden passive with a perfect (9.118 b), see Section 9.5.15 for a more in-depth discussion of this difference.
| (9.118) | a. | Aber auch daran ist gedacht. |
| b. | An nichts ist gearbeitet worden. (= An nichts wird gearbeitet. +> sein + Partizip perfect) |
[9.174] Attested Verbs
[9.175] In constrast, sein impersonal passives with datives are easy to find. Most nominative/dative verbs that allow for a werden impersonal passive (see Section 9.5.3) also seem to be possible with sein + Partizip (9.119).
| (9.119) | a. | Dem Entschluss ist entsprochen. „Es gibt kein Zurück“, sagte Metzger, „ganz gleich, ob dem Willen des Haushaltsausschusses entsprochen ist oder nicht.“111 |
| b. | Ihm ist geholfen. Ich glaube nicht, dass den Jungs damit geholfen ist.112 |
|
| c. | Ihm ist gekündigt. Schon gar nicht, bevor dem Mieter dort wirksam gekündigt ist.113 |
[9.176] Attested Verbs
[9.177] The gehören + Partizip passive appears to occur in some examples with intransitive verbs, resulting in impersonal constructions. An in-depth introduction of the gehören + Partizip passive can be found in Section 9.5.16. The usage of this constructions with intransitive verbs needs more in-depth study, as many examples seem doubtful (9.120 a,b). However, they are sparinlgy attested (9.120 c).
| (9.120) | a. | ? | In der Sauna gehört geschwitzt. |
| b. | ? | In der Nacht gehört geschlafen. | |
| c. | Um die Uhrzeit gehört geschlafen.114 |
[9.178] Impersonal passive constructions with a governed preposition are attested with the light-verb gehören (9.121). Basically the same verbs that occur with werden + Partizip can also occur with gehören + Partizip (see Section 9.5.2), though more detailed study is necessary.
| (9.121) | a. | Ich kämpfe gegen den Feind. Gegen den Feind gehört gekämpft. |
| b. | Darüber gehört diskutiert, darüber gehört gestritten.115 |
[9.179] Attested Verbs
[9.180] Impersonal passives with a dative are widespread with the light-verb gehören (9.122). Such examples were already included in one of the first discussions of the gehoren + Partizip Passive (Reis 1976: 70).
| (9.122) | a. | Ich helfe dem Studenten. Dem Studenten gehört geholfen. |
| b. | Ich kündige ihm. Ihm gehört gekündigt. |
|
| c. | Ihm gehört das Handwerk gelegt. |
[9.181] Attested Verbs
[9.182] The construction bleiben + Partizip is both used with intransitive verbs (see Section 9.4.11) and with transitive verbs (this section). The verb bleiben has even more uses as a light verb (see [Section 10.4.8; sec:zuinfinitive-bleiben; sec:zuminfinitive-bleiben]) and it can also be used as a main verb with a meaning ‘to remain’. This widespread usage has lead to quite some discussion in the German grammatical literature about the unity of all these constructions (Eroms 2000: 404; Helbig & Buscha 2001: 163; Krämer 2004; Schlücker 2007: 152; Lasch 2016: 72). Following the general approach in this book, all constructions are discussed separately. However, this is no way precludes any underlying connection between them.
[9.183] The name Kontinuativantikausativ for the transitive bleiben + Partizip construction is inspired by Helbig & Buscha (2001: 163). This construction is closely related to the stative sein + Partizip (see Section 9.5.15), but adds a notion of continuation (9.123 a). However, there are various further important differences between these two construction. First, because of the continuative semantics, a stacked Perfect ist not possible with bleiben + Partizip (9.123 b). Second, bleiben + Partizip does not appear to allow for the retention of the agent, so it is truly an anticausative (9.123 c).
| (9.123) | a. | Die Tür bleibt geöffnet. Die Tür ist geöffnet. |
|
| b. | * | Die Tür ist geöffnet geblieben. Die Tür ist geöffnet gewesen. |
|
| c. | * | Die Tür bleibt geöffnet durch den Wind. Die Tür ist geöffnet durch den Wind. |
[9.184] Third, bleiben + Partizip is only possible with a small subset of all verbs that allow for sein + Partizip (9.124). Helbig & Buscha (2001: 163) also offer an explanation for the restricted applicability of this construction. They propose that only verbs that describe reversible events allow for this diathesis.
| (9.124) | a. | * | Das Buch bleibt geschrieben |
| b. | * | Das Auto bleibt gewaschen |
[9.185] Attested Verbs
[9.186] Examples
[9.187] The four light verbs aussehen, scheinen, erscheinen and wirken can be used with participles in monoclausal constructions. With intransitive verbs these light verbs do not induce any diathesis (see Section 9.4.10). In contrast, with transitive verbs these constructions result in an anticausative diathesis (9.125). Such constructions are analysed by Lasch (2016: 253ff.) as Askription mit modaler Relation. For the German grammatical discussion, I propose to use the latinate name apparitivantikausativ from lat. apparere ‘to appear’.
| (9.125) | a. | Der Sturm beschädigt das Dach des Hauses. |
| b. | Das Dach des Hauses sieht beschädigt aus. |
[9.188] The retention of the agent using a von phrase appears to be possible, though examples are very rare (9.126). Note that examples with wie von phrases have to be discarded, as such phrases do not instantiate an agent. Because of the very rare attestation of such agents I consider these diatheses as anticausatives, and not as passives.
| (9.126) | a. | […] deren Zweige übrigens schon von der Sonnenhitze schnell verdorrt aussahen.116 |
| b. | Im Längsschnitt erscheint der helle Innenraum von zwei dunklen Linien begrenzt.117 | |
| c. | Zuletzt scheinen von diesem Prozeß die biblischen Gleichnisse betroffen.118 | |
| d. | Auch bei der Messe in Györ […] wirkte der Papst […] von Strapazen gezeichnet.119 |
[9.189] All four light verb constructions are attested with an additional experiencer dative (9.127). This additional dative seems to be most frequent with scheinen and erscheinen. With aussehen (9.127 a) it is only very rarely attested and with wirken (9.127 d) an alternative auf mich instead of dative mir seems more common.
| (9.127) | a. | […] der alte Kriegsheld sieht mir sehr determinirt aus […].120 |
| b. | Sein Gesicht erschien mir vertrocknet.121 | |
| c. | Der Titel […] scheint mir unglücklich gewählt.122 | |
| d. | Der Herr Assauer wirkte mir doch leicht angesäuselt.123 |
[9.190] The participles that are used in these constructions are very similar to secondary predicates (see Section 9.2.4). There is a continuum of constructions between clearly embedded constructions (9.128 a), secondary predicate constructions (9.128 b,c), and clearly monoclausal constructions (9.128 d). These constructions have a long history in the generative tradition under the heading of “subject raising”. A major early discussion of this phenomenon can be found in Postal (1974).
| (9.128) | a. | (Ich finde, dass …) die Pflanze aussieht, [alsob sie nicht von dir versorgt worden ist]. |
| b. | (Ich finde, dass …) die Pflanze [wie nicht von dir versorgt] aussieht. | |
| c. | (Ich finde, dass …) die Pflanze nicht [wie von dir versorgt] aussieht. | |
| d. | (Ich finde, dass …) die Pflanze nicht [von dir versorgt] aussieht. |
[9.191] The light verb scheinen can also occur with an extra zu sein construction (9.129), which is analysed here as a stack of a sein + Partizip Perfect (see Section 9.4.2) with a scheinen + zu + Infinitiv construction (see Section 11.4.3). The two examples in (9.129 b,c) are thus two different constructions, though the semantic difference needs a deeper investigation.
| (9.129) | a. | Der Gast reist ab. |
| b. | Der Gast scheint abgereist. | |
| c. | Der Gast scheint abgereist zu sein. |
[9.192] Attested Verbs
[9.193] The following attested verbs are only illustrative examples taken from the data analysed by Lasch (2016).124 There are many more verbs possible in these constructions, but these lists present a good sample of the kind of verbs that are actually attested.
[9.194] The diatheses geben + Partizip (9.130 a) and zeigen + Partizip (9.130 b) obligatorily need a reflexive pronoun. Both construction induce an anticausative diathesis in which the original agent cannot be retained. Semantically these two constructions are also rather similar as they both express a consciously induced appearance.
| (9.130) | a. | Die Musik entspannt ihn. Er gibt sich entspannt. |
| b. | Etwas motiviert das Orchester. Auch das Orchester zeigte sich motiviert.125 |
[9.195] This construction typically occurs with ‘state-of-mind’ verbs. Though note that it also frequently occurs with participles that are not transparently related to their meaning as finite verbs. For example, the verbs reservieren ‘to reserve’ and aufräumen ‘to clean up’ are only metaphorically related to their usage as states-of-mind participles (9.131).
| (9.131) | Er gibt sich reserviert/aufgeräumt. |
[9.196] Attested Verbs
[9.197] Examples
[9.198] Some instances of stehen with a participle appear to have an anticausative effect. However, such examples are quite rare and also rather idiomatic (9.132).
| (9.132) | a. | Irgendjemand hat die Tür geöffnet. Die Tür steht geöffnet. |
| b. | Irgendjemand hat mich korrigiert. Ich stehe korrigiert. |
[9.199] Most examples of finite stehen with a participle that occur in texts are not instances of this diathesis. Typically, the verb stehen ‘to stand’ is used in its literal meaning and the participle is an depictive secondary predicate (9.133 a). Another frequent use of stehen with participle is attested with ‘text manipulation’ verbs, like schreiben, erwähnen, nennen, eintragen, vermerken etc. (9.133 b). This seems to be a metaphorical usage of stehen, in the sense that letters ‘stand’ on a page. The participle is here likewise a depictive secondary predicate.
| (9.133) | a. | Das Planschbecken stand im Garten aufgebaut. |
| b. | Die Worte stehen auf der Titelseite geschrieben. |
[9.200] Attested Verbs
[9.201] Examples
[9.202] The werden + Partizip vorgangspassiv is the quintessential diathesis according to typical textbooks on German grammar. This diathesis promotes an accusative to nominative and (optionally) retains the original nominative as a prepositional durch or von phrase (9.134). Any further arguments (like datives or governed prepositions) are simply retained (9.134 c,d).
| (9.134) | a. | Der Handwerker hat das Haus angemalt. |
| b. | Das Haus wird angemalt (durch den Handwerker). | |
| c. | Er schenkt mir den Schrank. | |
| d. | Der Schrank wird mir (von ihm) geschenkt. |
[9.203] A verb peculiar constructions occurs when a Perfect ist stacked on top of a werden passive. The verb werden takes a sein + Parizip Perfect (see Section 9.4.2), but the participle of werden in this Perfect construction is the idiosyncratic wordform worden and not the expected geworden (9.135 a). This seems to be the only place in German in which the wordform worden is used. Note that it is easy to find examples of geworden as well (9.135 b,c), but the constructions with worden seems to be much more frequent. It is unclear whether there is any difference between the use of worden and geworden in this context.
| (9.135) | a. | Die Tür ist geschlossen worden. |
| b. | Tsipras schloss einen Rücktritt aus, der diskutiert geworden war, […].128 | |
| c. | Als die Krise in ihrer ganzen Dimension erkannt geworden sei, habe die Regierung gut reagiert.129 |
[9.204] This werden passive typically occurs with transitive verbs with an accusative argument, though it is also frequently attested as an ‘impersonal’ passive with intransitive verbs (see Section 9.5.1). Also some nominative + dative verbs allow for such an impersonal passive (see Section 9.5.3). Reflexive pronouns in the accusative case do not count as an accusative arguments, as they will never be promoted to nominative subject. Some verbs with an accusative reflexive pronoun allow for an impersonal passive (see Section 9.5.1).
[9.205] However, note that not all (nominative/accusative) transitive verbs allow for this werden + Partizip passive diathesis. For example, this diathesis is not possible for various verbs that also have a reflexive conversive diathesis (see Section 6.5.8), like wundern ‘to wonder’ (9.136). The passive is also not possible with verbs with obligatory quantified object (see Section 4.3.9), like wiegen ‘to weight’ (9.137). Also verbs of possession, like besitzen ‘to possess’ (9.138) do not allow for a passive.
| (9.136) | a. | Sein Verhalten wundert mich. | |
| b. | * | ich werde gewundert durch sein Verhalten. |
| (9.137) | a. | Der Lastwagen wiegt einen Zentner. | |
| b. | * | Ein Zentner wird von dem Lastwagen gewogen. |
| (9.138) | a. | Ich besitze einen Hund. | |
| b. | * | Ein Hund wird von mir besessen. |
[9.206] Unattested Verbs
[9.207] The werden + Partizip passive is possible with most verbs that take an accusative argument, except for the following ones:
[9.208] The second most widely discussed diathesis in the German grammatical literature (closely after the werden + Partizip passive) is the sein + Partizip zustandspassiv (Nedjalkov 1988; Rapp 1996; Maienborn 2007, just to cite a few major contributions to this topic). There is a long and ongoing discussion whether this construction should be considered a separate construction in its own right or not (see Section 9.2.7). Following the discussion by Maienborn (2007) I will treat it as a separate construction here. The agent can optionally be retained, though with difficulty as with most passives.
| (9.139) | a. | Der Postbote öffnet den Brief. |
| b. | Der Brief ist schon (von dem Postboten) geöffnet. |
[9.209] Crucially, there is an important difference between the sein + Partizip (9.140 a) and the sein + Partizip + worden constructions (9.140 b). These are sometimes seen as free-choice alternatives, but they are clearly not interchangeable (cf. Maienborn 2007). The construction with worden is best analysed as a stack of a werden + Partizip Passive plus on top of that a sein + Partizip Perfect (with the special stipulation that the sein + Partizip Perfect of werden leads to an idiosyncratic participle worden, see Section 9.5.14).
| (9.140) | a. | Der Brief ist geöffnet. |
| b. | Der Brief ist geöffnet worden. = Jemand öffnet den Brief. +> werden + Partizip Passiv (= Der Brief wird geöffnet.) +> sein + Partizip Perfect (= Der Brief ist geöffnet worden.) |
[9.210] The two constructions (with and without worden) have different temporal structures (see Section 9.2.5). Crucially, the sein + Partizip zustandspassiv (9.141 a) has a resultative meaning, which is consistent with a durative past temporal adverbial like schon seit zwei Tagen (9.141 b) but not with a past punctual adverbial like vor zwei Tagen or gestern (9.141 c). In contrast, the werden + Partizip Passive plus sein + Partizip Perfect (9.142 a) has a completive meaning with a reversed temporal interpretation (9.142 b,c).
| (9.141) | a. | Ich öffne den Brief. | |
| b. | Der Brief ist schon seit zwei Tagen geöffnet. | ||
| c. | * | Der Brief ist schon vor zwei Tagen geöffnet. |
| (9.142) | a. | Das Haus wird repariert. | |
| b. | * | Das Haus ist schon seit zwei Tagen repariert worden. | |
| c. | Das Haus ist schon vor zwei Tagen repariert worden. |
[9.211] Most verbs with an accusative argument seem to allow for a Zustandspassiv, with additional arguments being simply retained, like the dative of vermieten ‘to rent’ (9.143).
| (9.143) | a. | Der Nachbar vermietet mir den Stellplatz. |
| b. | Der Stellplatz ist mir schon seit langem vermietet. |
[9.212] Still, there are some transitive verbs that do not appear to allow a Zustandspassiv, like ärgern ‘to irritate’ (9.144 a,b). Among those verbs without Zustandspassiv there is a recurrent alternative to use a preverb to attain the expected meaning, like verärgern ‘to irritate’ (9.144 c), see also Section 7.4.6. Maienborn (2007: 102-103) also notes the claims in the literature that some verbs do not allow a Zustandspassiv, but she dismisses such claims as the effect of pragmatic restrictions on their usage. I will list some verbs that appear to be at least problematic, if not completely impossible. However, the extend of applicability of the Zustandspassiv needs more in-depth corpus investigations.
| (9.144) | a. | Die Schüler ärgern den Lehrer. | |
| b. | * | Der Lehrer ist geärgert. | |
| c. | Der Lehrer ist verärgert. |
[9.213] Unattested Verbs
[9.214] The following verbs with accusative arguments do not seem to allow for a sein + partizip Passive:
[9.215] Examples
[9.216] Notes
[9.217] Some verbs have a sein + Partizip diathesis, but only with a rather strong semantic shift in the meaning of the verb. For example, anhalten means ‘to stop’, but angehalten sein means ‘to be admonished’ (9.145 a). Likewise, stören means ‘to disturb,’, but gestört sein means ‘to be crazy’ (9.145 b) and ergeben means ‘to yield’, but ergeben sein means to be devoted to (9.145 c).
| (9.145) | a. | Ich halte den Bus an. Die Botschaften sind angehalten, Visa nicht auszustellen.130 |
| b. | Der Lärm stört den Mann. Der Mann ist gestört. |
|
| c. | Die Transaktionen ergaben einen hohen Gewinn. Ich weiß aber, daß Herr Dulles dem Frieden ergeben ist.131 |
[9.218] The gehören + Partizip passive adds a normative aspect to the meaning of the passive. It expresses that something ought to happen. An early (short) discussion of this construction is given by Reis (1976: 70) and Höhle (1978: 50-51), with slightly more elaboration in Engel (1996: 458), Eroms (2000: 405-412) and Szátmari (2002: 179-182). More recent discussions are found in Stathi (2010) and Lasch (2016: 84ff.). This construction is widespread for transitive verbs like verbrennen ‘to burn something’ (9.146 a). Any further arguments can be retained, like the dative ihm ‘to him’ with the verb sagen ‘to say’ (9.146 b). The retention of the agent with a prepositional phrase seems to be perfectly possible (9.146 c), although not frequent.132
| (9.146) | a. | Er verbrennt diese Buch. Dieses Buch gehört verbrannt. |
| b. | Hanna sagt ihm die Meinung. Ihm gehört die Meinung gesagt. |
|
| c. | Der Schiedsrichter verwarnt den Spieler. Der Spieler gehört verwarnt (durch den Schiedsrichter). |
[9.219] Attested Verbs
[9.220] Various authors have listed verbs that allow for this construction. As examples, I have reproduced those lists here.
[9.221] This is yet another diathesis involving the light verb machen, this time with an obligatory reflexive pronoun.
| (9.147) | a. | Die Polizei verdächtigt ihn. |
| b. | Er macht sich bei der Polizei verdächtigt. |
[9.222] Attested Verbs
[9.223] Examples
[9.224] Notes
[9.225] There are various machen + sich + Partizip constructions that do not appear to be transparently related anymore to the finite usage of the main verb (9.148).
| (9.148) | a. | Ich mache mich auf alles gefasst. |
| b. | Ich mache mich um etwas verdient. | |
| c. | Die Loyalität macht sich bezahlt. |
[9.226] The bekommen dative passive is typically found with verbs with a dative that also have an accusative argument (see Section 9.5.19). Leirbukt (1997: 64-67) only finds a single example without accusative in his corpus, but he lists various examples as presented by other authors. Examples with verbs like helfen ‘to help’ are questionable (9.149 a,b), but are widely attesed inside a modal constructions (9.149 c).
| (9.149) | a. | Die Ärztin hilft mir. | |
| b. | ? | Ich bekomme geholfen (von der Ärztin). | |
| c. | Ich bin krank und will geholfen bekommen!133 |
[9.227] Attested Verbs
[9.228] Examples
[9.229] The dative passive is widely discussed in the German grammatical literature under the name Rezipientenpassiv. Leirbukt* (1997) presents a major monograph-sized investigation of this construction. This diathesis promotes the dative argument to nominative subject. For example, the dative dem Schüler of the verb abnehmen ‘to take away’ (9.150 a) is remapped to nominative der Schüler (9.150 b). As with all passives, the original agent can be expressed with a von or durch prepositional phrase, though this is uncommon. Leirbukt (1997: 130) finds 10-20% expressed agents, most using von, and almost all being semantically animate.
| (9.150) | a. | Der Lehrer nimmt dem Schüler das Handy ab. |
| b. | Der Schüler bekommt das Handy abgenommen (von dem Lehrer). |
[9.230] The choice between the light verbs bekommen, kriegen and erhalten does not seem to have any clear semantic impact, but is mainly determined stylistically and dialectally (Leirbukt 1997: Ch. 4; Lenz 2013: 427ff.).
[9.231] Attested Verbs
[9.232] Examples
[9.233] Transitive verbs that allow for a possessor-dative alternation (see Section 4.8.4) can be used in a very special haben + Partizip diathesis. For example, the possessor of the object of a verb like reparieren ‘to repair’ (9.151 a) can alternatively be expressed as a dative (9.151 b). This dative can be promoted to subject in a haben + Partizip construction (9.151 c). I propose to call this construction Pertinenzpassiv. Sentence (9.151 c) is highly ambiguous with a preference for the epithetical agentive reading ‘I have repaired the computer’ (Perfekt), so it needs a special context to be understood in the intended diathetical experiencer meaning ‘The computer has been repaired on my behalf’ (Pertinenzpassiv). As extensively discussed by Leirbukt (Leirbukt 2000), inside a modal construction the diathetical reading is the preferred one, for example using wollen, ‘to want’ (9.151 d).
| (9.151) | a. | Der erfahrene Techniker hat meinen Rechner repariert. |
| b. | Der erfahrene Techniker hat mir den Rechner repariert. | |
| c. | Ich habe den Rechner repariert. (= Der Rechner ist für mich repariert worden.) |
|
| d. | Ich will den Rechner repariert haben. |
[9.234] The retention of the original subject is only possible with some stative verbs (9.152 a). Retention is much more widespread With the light verb haben in the Konjunktiv (9.152 b). With the stacked modal construction it is also more widespread to retain the original subject (9.152 c).
| (9.152) | a. | Er hat das Gesicht von tiefen Falten durchfurcht (Latzel 1977b: 301). |
| b. | Ich hätte den Rechner gerne von dem erfahrenen Techniker repariert. | |
| c. | Ich will den Rechner von dem erfahrenen Techniker repariert haben. |
[9.235] It is crucial for this Pertinenzpassiv that the possessor of the accusative can be expressed alternatively as a dative. It is exactly the set of those verbs that allow for such a Pertinenzdativ that also allow for a Pertinentzpassiv. It is neither all datives, nor all possessors, that allow for a Pertinentzpassiv (Hole 2002: 175-177). This interpretation is only available when both dative and possessor expressions are possible. Additionally, the Pertinenzpassiv is most easily applied with verbs that are typically outsourced, i.e. verbs that describe actions that are often performed by somebody else, i.e. reparieren ‘to repair’, die Haare schneiden ‘to cut hair’ or den Arm brechen ‘to break an arm’.
[9.236] There are various tests to identify haben + Partizip construction as a diathesis. Businger (2011: 160-171) presents an extensive discussion of such criteria. I will present only two (major) criteria here. First, the two interpretation of the haben + Partizip constructions have different temporal interpretations (see Section 9.2.5). The epithetical Perfekt is tense-oriented (9.153 a), while the diathetical experiencer interpretation is perfect-oriented (9.153 b). This difference can be shown by adding temporal adverbial phrases. The punctual past gestern ‘yesterday’ invokes an epithetical reading (9.153 a), while a durative perfect seit drei Tagen ‘since three days’ invokes a diathetical reading (9.153 b).
| (9.153) | a. | Ich habe den Rechner gestern repariert. (= Gestern habe ich etwas getan, nämlich den Rechner repariert.) |
| b. | Ich habe den Rechner seit drei Tagen repariert. (= Mein Rechner ist schon seit drei Tagen repariert.) |
[9.237] Second, the diathetical experiencer reading is incompatible with an additional repetition of the possessor, either as adnominal genitive (9.154 a) or as dative (9.154 b). These examples sentences can only be interpreted as epithetical agentive constructions. In contrast, with some body injury verbs like brechen ‘to break’ the repetition of the possessor is possible with the experiential reading of the Pertinenzpassiv (9.154 c). Note that this is. for example, not possible with amputieren ‘to amputate’ (9.154 d,e).
| (9.154) | a. | Ich habe meinen Rechner repariert. (= Ich habe etwas getan, nämlich meinen Rechner repariert.) |
|
| b. | Ich habe mir den Rechner repariert. (= Ich habe etwas getan, nämlich meinen Rechner repariert.) |
||
| c. | Ich habe mir den Arm gebrochen. (= Mir ist etwas passiert, und dadurch ist mein Arm gebrochen.) |
||
| d. | Ich habe den Arm amputiert. | ||
| e. | ? | Ich habe mir den Arm amputiert. |
[9.238] Hole (2002: 177) claims that (9.155 a) without different subject (Der Chef) and possessor (Anna) can have a diathetical experiencer reading. Although this interpretation might be possible (with much difficulty), I think that the Pertinenzpassiv is never used this way in German. In contrast, note that with additional Konjunktiv (9.155 b) or with modal stacking (9.155 c) is clearly possible to have an explicit or even different possessor. Because of this, Hole (2002: 173-174; following Leirbukt 1981) even proposes that the embedded construction (9.155 b,c) should be considered yet again a different construction. I do not follow this proposal here.
| (9.155) | a. | Der Chef (der in Annas Büro sitzt) hat Annas Fenster geöffnet. (= ? Irgendjemand hat Annas Fenster für die Chef geöffnet.) |
| b. | Der Chef hätte gerne Annas/sein Fenster geöffnet. | |
| c. | Der Chef will gerne Annas/sein Fenster geöffnet haben. |
[9.239] There is a long scholarly history describing this experiencer reading of the haben + Partizip construction (e.g. Kruisinga 1935: 122; Bech 1955: 20-21; Stopp 1957: 278; Seiler 1973: 842-843; Latzel 1977b: 289; Helbig 1978: 42-43; Höhle 1978: 46; Eroms 2000: 395-396, 420-421). The first more in-depth discussion is by Leirbukt (1981; 2000), followed by Hole (2002), Rothstein (2007b), and most recently Lasch (2016: 87ff.) and Businger (2011: Ch. 4). In the recent literature following Hole (2002), this construction is known as the partizipiale haben-konfiguration (phk). I find this name rather cumbersome and uninformative. Alternatively, I propose to call this construction pertinenzpassiv as there is an strong connection to the Pertinenzdativ (see Section 4.8.4) and the Rezipientenpassiv (see Section 9.5.19).
[9.240] The possibility of this diathesis without accusative object is observed by Rothstein (2007b: 295-296), but his examples (öffnen, schließen) are not applicable, because they also occur as intransitives (9.156). Those verbs are covert anticausatives, see Section 4.5.5. Still, there are incidental examples without accusative object, but they show a rather idiosyncratic remapping of roles as discussed in Section 9.9.1.
| (9.156) | a. | Der Laden hat seit drei Stunden geöffnet. |
| b. | Der Inhaber öffnet seinen Laden heute etwas später. | |
| c. | Der Laden öffnet heute etwas später. |
[9.241] Starting from the very first mentioning of the haben dative passive a connection to the bekommen dative passive (Section 9.5.19) is recurrently mentioned (e.g. Kruisinga 1935: 122) and criticised (e.g. Hole 2002: 172-173; Businger 2011: 176-184). The basic observation is the parallel as shown in (9.157). Although there is undoubtedly a similarity between (9.157 a) and (9.157 b), these two sentences are clearly different constructions. For example, both constructions have different temporal structures (9.158).
| (9.157) | a. | Ich habe den Arm verbunden. (= Mir ist der Arm verbunden.) |
| b. | Ich habe den Arm verbunden bekommen. (= Mir ist der Arm verbunden worden.) |
| (9.158) | a. | Ich habe den Arm schon seit drei Stunden verbunden. | |
| b. | * | Ich habe den Arm gestern verbunden. | |
| c. | Ich habe den Arm gestern verbunden bekommen. | ||
| d. | * | Ich habe den Arm schon seit drei Stunden verbunden bekommen. |
[9.242] There is a fascinating parallel between different kinds of Pertinenzdativ and different constructions with the light-verb haben. The Pertinenzdativ of an accusative object allows for a haben + Partizip diathesis (9.159 a), as discussed in this section. In contrast, a Pertinenzdativ of a local prepositional phrase with a positional verb (see Section 5.8.10) allows for a haben + Infinitiv diathesis (9.159 b), see Section 10.9.2. Finally, a Pertinenzdativ of an intransitive verb (see Section 4.8.3) allows for a haben + am + Infinitive diathesis (9.159 c), see Section 12.9.1.
| (9.159) | a. | Der Friseur schneidet die Haare des Lehrers. Der Lehrer hat die Haare geschnitten. |
| b. | Der Affe sitzt auf meinen Schulter. Ich habe den Affen auf meine Schulter sitzen. |
|
| c. | Mein Haus brennt. Ich habe mein Haus am brennen. |
[9.243] Attested Verbs
[9.244] Examples
[9.245] A group of emotional verbs like verärgern ‘to irritate’ (9.160 a) shows a special diathesis. When used with a sein + Partizip construction, the original nominative subject (i.e. the cause of the emotional reaction, here Nachricht ‘notice’) can be retained as a governed preposition. This preposition differs between the verbs. For exanple, the verb verärgern induces the preposition über (9.160 b). The special status of this preposition can be shown by using the da + Preposition, dass paraphrase (9.160 c), see Section 5.2.1.
| (9.160) | a. | Die Nachricht verärgert mich. |
| b. | Ich bin verärgert über die Nachricht. | |
| c. | Ich bin verärgert darüber, dass die Nachricht verbreitet wurde. |
[9.246] Some verbs that allow for this sein + Partizip conversive also allow for a reflexive conversive, like amüsieren ‘to amuse’ (9.161), see Section 6.5.8. However, not all verbs allow for both diatheses. For example ärgern ‘to irritate’ does not allow the sein + Partizip conversive, but does allow the reflexive conversive. (9.162). The verb anwidern ‘to nauseate’ shows the reverse distribution (9.163).
| (9.161) | a. | Der Witz amüsiert mich. |
| b. | Ich bin von/über den Witz amüsiert. | |
| c. | Ich amüsiere mich über den Witz. | |
| d. | Ich habe mich über den Witz amüsiert. |
| (9.162) | a. | Der Witz ärgert mich. | |
| b. | * | Ich bin geärgert von/über den Witz. | |
| c. | Ich ärgere mich über den Witz. | ||
| d. | Ich habe mich über den Witz geärgert. |
| (9.163) | a. | Der Witz widert mich an. | |
| b. | Ich bin angewidert von dem Witz. | ||
| c. | * | Ich widere mich von dem Witz an. | |
| d. | * | Ich habe mich von dem Witz angewidert. |
[9.247] Attested Verbs
[9.248] Examples
[9.249] The few examples of this construction all have a governed preposition in.
| (9.164) | a. | Das Desaster begründet die Hoffnung. |
| b. | Im Desaster liegt immer auch die Hoffnung begründet. | |
| c. | Die Hoffnung liegt darin begründet, dass … |
[9.250] Most examples with a finite verb liegen and a participle have a different structure, like (9.165). In these examples the verb liegen has the literal meaning ‘to lie’ and the participle is a adverbial secondary predicate (see Section 9.2.4).
| (9.165) | a. | Er liegt in der Kirche aufgebahrt. |
| b. | Das Geschenk liegt in der Schublade versteckt. |
[9.251] Attested Verbs
[9.252] Examples
[9.253] This is yet another diathesis involving the light verb machen.
| (9.166) | a. | Ich begehre den Job wegen der Bezahlung. |
| b. | Die Bezahlung macht den Job begehrt. |
[9.254] Attested Verbs
[9.255] Examples
[9.256] The four German verbs wissen ‘to know’, glauben ‘to believe’, sehen ‘to see’ and finden ‘to find’ (and apparently only those four) allow for a construction with a participle reminiscent of the Latin accusativus cum participio construction. These constructions describe a subjective opinion of the nominative subject about the veracity of the participle and such diatheses will consequently be called opiniative here. This opinion is marked as either more certain (wissen, finden) or less certain (glauben, sehen). These constructions can be syntactically identified by the possibility to form an alternate expression with a dass finite complement clause (9.167).
| (9.167) | a. | Sie glaubt ihn eingeschlafen. (= Sie glaubt, dass er eingeschlafen ist.) |
| b. | Sie weiß den Nachlass im Archiv gut aufgehoben. (= Sie weiß, dass der Nachlass im Archiv gut aufgehoben ist.) |
[9.257] The participles in such constructions are either derived from patientive intransitive verbs, like einschlafen ‘to fall asleep’ (9.167 a) or transitive verbs, like aufheben ‘to take care’ (9.167 b). These two possibilities lead to quite different diatheses. With intransitive clauses, like er schläft ein (9.167 a), the erstwhile nominative turns into an accusative and a new nominative opinionator is introduced, i.e. a remapping pattern [–n | na]. In contrast, with transitive clauses like das Archiv hebt den Nachlass auf (9.167 b), the accusative does not change and the erstwhile nominative is dropped or can optionally be expressed with a prepositional phrase. Together with the newly introduced opinionator this leads to a remapping pattern [–na | npa]. These two remapping patterns will be discussed separately below.
[9.258] In testing for these constructions with finden and sehen (9.168), note that with these verbs the participle constructions cannot directly be reformulated with a dass finite complement clause. The meanings of the verbs sehen ‘to see’ and finden ‘to find’ have been grammaticalised in this construction to mean something like glauben ‘to believe’ (9.168 b) or überzeugt sein ‘to be sure’ (9.168 b), respectively.
| (9.168) | a. | Er sieht seinen Erfolg bedroht. (= Er glaubt, dass sein Erfolg bedroht ist.) |
| b. | Er findet das Kunstwert gelungen. (= Er ist überzeugt, dass das Kunstwerk gelungen ist.) |
[9.259] In identifying these constructions, care has again to be taken with the verbs finden and sehen. These verbs occur in superficially similar constructions, as exemplified in (9.169), which actually have a completely different underlying structure. In these examples the verbs finden and sehen are used in their literal transitive meaning of finding/seeing an object. Additionally, the sentence is modified by a depictive secondary predicate in the form of a participle, as extensively discussed in Section 9.2.4.141
| (9.169) | a. | Sie findet ihn am Schreibtisch eingeschlafen. (= Sie findet ihn, während er am Schreibtisch eingeschlafen ist.) |
| b. | Er sieht die Buchstaben verzerrt. (= Er sieht die Buchstaben, aber die Buchstaben sind verzerrt.) |
[9.260] As originally observed by Leirbukt (2000), all these constructions appear to be much more acceptable (and much more frequent) when they are stacked inside a modal verb like wollen (see Section 2.5 for the term ‘stacking’). Leirbukt only discusses sehen (9.170) and wissen (9.171) and seems to have missed the constructions with glauben and finden. He also discussed constructions with haben, but these are discussed here as a completely different diathesis in Section 9.5.20.
| (9.170) | a. | ? | Sie sahen in dem Interview ihre Namen nicht genannt. |
| b. | Sie wollten in dem Interview ihre Namen nicht genannt sehen. |
| (9.171) | a. | ? | Die Belegschaft weiß das Wahlergebnis keinesfalls als Zustimmung verstanden. |
| b. | Die Belegschaft möchte das Wahlergebnis keinesfalls als Zustimmung verstanden wissen. |
[9.261] Similarly, these opiniatives are much more acceptable (and much more frequent) when they form a stack in combination with a self-inflicting reflexive pronoun alternation (see Section 6.4.5). The reflexive marking indicates that the opinionator and the opined object are the same participant. This is possible both with intransitives (9.172) and transitives (9.173).
| (9.172) | a. | Ich scheitere. | |
| b. | ? | Der Lehrer sieht mich gescheitert. | |
| c. | Ich sehe mich gescheitert. |
| (9.173) | a. | Die Polizei verfolgt den Dieb. | |
| b. | ? | Ich weiß den Dieb von der Polizei verfolgt. | |
| c. | Der Dieb weiß sich von der Polizei verfolgt. |
| (9.174) | a. | Das Kind schläft ein. |
| b. | Sie weiß das Kind eingeschlafen. |
[9.262] Attested Verbs
[9.263] Examples
| (9.175) | a. | Der Sieg kommt. |
| b. | Er glaubte den Sieg gekommen. |
[9.264] Attested Verbs
[9.265] Examples
| (9.176) | a. | Die UN scheitert. |
| b. | Viele Menschen sehen die UN bereits gescheitert. (= Viele Menschen glauben, dass die UN bereits gescheitert ist.) |
[9.266] Attested Verbs
[9.267] Examples
| (9.177) | a. | Er wächst. |
| b. | Ich finde ihn gewachsen. |
[9.268] Attested Verbs
[9.269] Examples
| (9.178) | a. | Das Archiv hebt den Nachlass auf. |
| b. | Ich weiß den Nachlass im Archiv gut aufgehoben. |
[9.270] The following example (9.179) from Leirbukt (2000) shows that any additional dative arguments are simply retained.
| (9.179) | a. | Jemand unterstellt die Ostgebiete dem Kontrollrat. |
| b. | Ich weiß die Ostgebiete dem Kontrollrat unterstellt. |
[9.271] Attested Verbs
[9.272] Examples
[9.273] Stacked with modal verbs:
[9.274] Stacked with self-inflicting reflexive alternation:
| (9.180) | a. | Der Wind zerreist das Seil. |
| b. | Er glaubt das Seil vom Wind zerrissen. (= Er glaubt, dass das Seil vom Wind zerrissen ist.) |
[9.275] Attested Verbs
[9.276] Examples
[9.277] Stacked with self-inflicting reflexive alternation:
| (9.181) | a. | Der Autor bricht das Vertrauen. |
| b. | Die Zeitung sieht das Vertrauen durch den Autor gebrochen. |
[9.278] Attested Verbs
[9.279] Examples
[9.280] Stacked with self-inflicting reflexive alternation:
| (9.182) | a. | Das Alter verändert mich. |
| b. | Du findest mich vom Alter verändert? |
[9.281] Attested Verbs
[9.282] Examples
[9.283] Stacked with self-inflicting reflexive alternation:
[9.284] One of the many different diathesis with the light-verb machen.
| (9.183) | a. | Ich eigne mich durch meine Qualifikation für den Job. |
| b. | Die Qualifikation macht mich geeignet für den Job. |
[9.285] Attested Verbs
[9.286] Examples
[9.287] Not Attested.
[9.288] Not Attested.
[9.289] A few incidental intransitive verbs allow for a special variant of the possessor passive diathesis Section 9.5.20. In the possessor passive, the possessor of an accusative object (9.184 a) is remapped to nominative subject (9.184 c). This is only possible with possessors that can alternatively be expressed as a dative (9.184 b).
| (9.184) | a. | Der Friseur schneidet meine Haare. |
| b. | Der Friseur schneidet mir die Haare. | |
| c. | Ich habe die Haare geschnitten. |
[9.290] A similar diathesis for the possessor of an intransitive subject is attested, though it is very rare (cf. Businger 2011: 162-163). An example is the verb anschwellen ‘to swell’, for which the possessor of the subject (9.185 a) can be expressed as dative (9.185 b) and as subject in a haben + Partizip construction (9.185 c). In these intransitive examples, it seems even possible to repeat the possessor adnominally (9.185 d).
| (9.185) | a. | Sein Arm schwellt an. |
| b. | Ihm schwellt der Arm an. | |
| c. | Er hat den Arm angeschwollen. | |
| d. | Er hat seinen Arm angeschwollen. |
[9.291] A similar, but more widespread diathesis is the haben + am + Infinitiv constructions (9.186), see Section 12.9.1.
| (9.186) | a. | Meine Leitungen frieren zu. |
| b. | Mir frieren die Leitungen zu. | |
| c. | Ich habe die Leitungen am zufrieren. |
[9.292] Attested Verbs
[9.293] Examples
[9.294] The construction gehen + Partizip appears to be only possible with verlieren and gewinnen. The possibility to retain the agent as a dative seems to be rather old-fashioned.
| (9.187) | a. | Ich verliere den Ring. |
| b. | Der Ring geht mir verloren. |
[9.295] Attested Verbs
[9.296] Examples
[9.297] One of the many different diathesis with the light-verb machen.
| (9.188) | a. | Er vergisst den Verlust. |
| b. | Ich mache den Verlust vergessen. |
[9.298] Attested Verbs
[9.299] Apparently only possible with the main verb verlieren. Note that the the person losing something (9.189 a) is not necessarily the same person as the person declaring the loss (9.189 b).
| (9.189) | a. | Irgendjemand verliert den Ring. |
| b. | Ich gebe den Ring verloren. |
[9.300] Attested Verbs
[10.1] Constructions with a light verb and an infinitive are widely discussed in German grammar. Such constructions are widespread without diathesis, for example in combination with modal verbs (10.1 a), see Section 10.4.2ff. or forming an absentive with sein (10.1 b), see Section 10.4.4. Less widely discussed is an interesting construction of haben with infinitive and an adverbial (10.1 c), see Section 10.4.9.
| (10.1) | a. | Die Schülerin muss/darf/will/kann die Pflanzen gießen. |
| b. | Die Schülerin ist die Pflanzen gießen. | |
| c. | Die Schülerin hat gut reden. |
[10.2] There are also various light verbs that induce a diathesis when used with an infinitive. For example, lassen induces a causative (10.2 a), see Section 10.6.2. Various verbs of perception induce a special experientive construction, like sehen (10.2 b), see Section 10.6.6. Less widely discussed is the diathesis of haben with an infinitive of a position verb (10.2 c), see Section 10.9.2.
| (10.2) | a. | Die Lehrerin lässt die Schülerin die Pflanzen gießen. |
| b. | Die Lehrerin sieht die Schülerin die Pflanzen gießen. | |
| c. | Die Lehrerin hat ihre Pflanzen auf der Fensterbank stehen. |
[10.3] Following Bech (1955) such construction are often designated as Erster Status in the German grammatical literature. However, this name is not very transparent nor particularly mnemonic, so I prefer to simply use the term light-verb-plus-infinitive constructions.
[10.4] There are ten frequently occurring diatheses that use a light verb + infinitive construction and for which I propose a German name, as listed below. Note that the lassen + Infinitiv construction occurs in many different diatheses. A detailed discussion of these can be found in Section 10.2.5.
[10.5] The German infinitive (cf. Duden-Grammatik 2009: 443) is straigtforwardly identified as a wordform ending in -en (10.3 a) with an allomorph -n after stems ending in -el/er (10.3 b). This infinitive is considered to be the citation form of a verb, for example occurring as the index entry in dictionaries. Note that there is a widespread syncretism between the infinitive and the finite 1st and 3rd person plural present form of most verbs. For example, the wordform werden in (10.3 c) is a finite 1st plural, while laufen is an infinitive. This can be ascertained by changing the subject to the singular (10.3 d), which shows the different agreement of the finite form werde, while the infinitive laufen does not change.
| (10.3) | a. | lauf-en, versteh-en, werd-en |
| b. | sammel-n, bedauer-n, änder-n | |
| c. | Wir werden laufen. | |
| d. | Ich werde laufen. |
[10.6] Functionally, the infinitive is a nominal form of the verb that regularly occurs preceded by a determiner (10.4). In such usage, German orthography urges for the capitalisation of the infinitive. This nominal nature of the infinitive contrasts nicely to the adjectival nature of the participle, as discussed in the previous chapter.
| (10.4) | Das Laufen fällt mir schwer. |
[10.7] Given the nominal nature of the infinitive, there is a close connection between light-verb-plus-infinitive constructions and nominal predication, i.e. constructions of a light verb with a bare noun (without determiner). Nominal predication in German is typically constructed with light verbs werden, sein or bleiben (Duden-Grammatik 2009: 812-813). The parallel between infinitives and nouns is obvious with the future meaning of werden (10.5 a), see Section 10.4.2, and the continuative meaning of bleiben (10.5 b), see Section 10.4.8. However, as illustrated in (10.5 c), the meaning of sein + noun (‘identification’) is quite different from sein + infinitive (‘absentive’), see Section 10.4.4.
| (10.5) | a. | Ich werde Vater. Ich werde wenig schlafen. |
| b. | Ich bleibe Vater. Ich bleibe lieber sitzen. |
|
| c. | Ich bin Vater. Ich bin dann mal einkaufen. |
[10.8] Modal verbs (see Section 10.4.1) are normally not used for nominal predication. However, in recent political framing the nominal predication Kanzler können ‘to know how to be a chancelor’ has become famous (10.6 a), even leading to other modal verbs being used in the same construction (10.6 b). Kubczak (2014) investigates the parallel of such usage to nominal constructions of ability like (10.6 c).
| (10.6) | a. | Kurt Beck, der kann Kanzler.159 |
| b. | Rosier darf Kanzler!160 | |
| c. | Er kann den Dialekt dieser Gegend. |
[10.9] Possession of a noun can be indicated by using the verb haben in German, though the possessed nouns typically need a determiner (10.7 a). With mental states like Schmerzen ‘pain’ or Geduld ‘patience’ it is possible to use the same haben construction with bare nouns (10.7 b). In a metaphorical sense such mental states can be considered a kind of possession. Compare that to the two different constructions using haben with an infinitive. The Ortspertinenzinversiv (10.7 c), see Section 10.9.2, still includes a sense of possession. The subject of this construction (here Er ‘he’) is necesserily the possessor of the object in the prepositional phrase (here Nase ‘nose’). In contrast, the Exemptiv (10.7 d), see Section 10.4.9 has no relation to possession at all.
| (10.7) | a. | Ich habe eine Tasse. |
| b. | Ich habe Geduld/Schmerzen. | |
| c. | Er habe einen Tropfen an seiner Nase hängen. | |
| d. | Er hat leicht reden. |
[10.10] A further kind of nominal predication uses the verb heißen ‘to be named’ (Duden-Grammatik 2009: 813), indicating that the subject has a particular name (10.8 a). Instead of a noun it is also possible to use infinitives, either without zu (10.8 b) or with zu (10.8 c). Both these construction indicate equation, and it is unclear whether there is any difference between the equations with or without zu. Interestingly, both the subject and the predicate in such sentences need to be infinitives (and both either with or without zu). Note that the light verb heißen can also be used in a (somewhat old-fashioned) causative construction (10.8 d), which seems to be completely separate from the equation usage (see Section 10.6.5). The other causative light verbs lassen, schicken, machen likewise do not have a counterpart in nominal predication.
| (10.8) | a. | Dieses Sternbild heißt Großer Bär.161 |
| b. | Die Symbole abschaffen heißt die Freimaurerei abschaffen.162 Von den Erwachsenen lernen, heißt Reife beweisen.163 |
|
| c. | Diese Wahrheit zu akzeptieren, hieße zu resignieren.164 Eine Katze zu haben, heißt, sich um ein Lebewesen kümmern zu müssen.165 |
|
| d. | Der Henker hieß ihn niederknieen. |
[10.11] Given the immense influence of Latin grammar on grammatical theory, it is no surprise that the classical Latin accusativus cum infinitivo (ACI) construction is often used to desribe a similary phenomenon in German (10.9). In such constructions, the subject of the verb in the infinitive (viz. the logical subject of putzen and kaufen) ends up as an accusative. This construction is very widespread in Latin, but in German only applicable to the few light-verb-plus-infinitive construction that add a new subject, viz causative verbs like schicken ‘to send’ (10.9 a) and perception verbs like sehen ‘to see’ (10.9 b). Speyer (Speyer 2018) discusses the history of these constructions in German, argueing that they are original Germanic (and possibly even proto-Indo-European). Although the surface structure in German are clearly monoclausal, underlyingly there might be a different structures for verbs like sehen with a biclausal dass alternative (see Harbert 1977 for a discussion).
| (10.9) | a. | Er kauft Brot. Sie schickt ihn Brot kaufen. |
| b. | Der Mann putzt den Tisch. Sie sieht, dass der Mann den Tisch putzt. Sie sieht den Mann den Tisch putzen. |
[10.12] The Ersatzinfinitiv is a special syntactic phenomenon attested in West-Germanic languages (Schmid 2005; Schallert 2014). It concerns the inflectional paradigm of some of the light verbs that are used with infinitives, like können, sehen or lassen. For example, the verb sehen has a regular perfect with haben and a participle gesehen (10.10 a). However, when sehen is used as a light verb with an infinitive, then the perfect consists of haben with an infinitive sehen (10.10 b). A participle would be ungrammatical in this construction (10.10 c). Because the infinitive is used instead of the expected participle, this phenomenon is known as an Ersatzinfinitiv or ‘infinitive instead of a participle’ (Lat. infinitivus pro participium, IPP). Diachronically this is a relatively recent development, probably starting in the 14th/15th Century (Jäger 2018; see also Coupé 2015: Ch. 7 for a detailed diachronic study of the IPP in Dutch).
| (10.10) | a. | Sie sieht, dass er den Tisch putzt. Sie hat gesehen, dass er den Tisch putzt. |
|
| b. | Sie sieht ihn den Tisch putzen. Sie hat ihn den Tisch putzen sehen. |
||
| c. | * | Sie hat ihn den Tisch putzen gesehen. |
[10.13] Based on data from various West-Germanic languages and dialects, Schmid (2005: 32-33, 106) proposes an hierarchy of verb types that show this phenomenon (10.11). German fits nicely in this hierarchy (almost by definition, because German was used to propose the hierarchy in the first place). The German verbs inducing the IPP are causative lassen, modals dürfen/können/mögen/müssen/sollen/wollen and also brauchen, perception verbs hören, sehen and benefactive helfen.
| (10.11) | Implicational scale of IPP Ersatzinfinitiv verbs |
| causatives < modals < perception verbs < benefactives < duratives < inchoatives < control verbs |
[10.14] However, this hierachy should be interpreted rather loosely. The designation ‘causative’ on the hierarchy is a misnomer. The verb lassen also induces the IPP in its other uses, viz. possibility and permission (see the next Section 10.2.5). Conversely, other causative constructions with schicken (see Section 10.6.3) and machen (see Section 10.6.4) do not induce an IPP. Likewise, while the perception verbs hören and sehen induce an IPP, the syntactically similar perception verbs fühlen and spüren do not (see Section 10.6.6ff.).
[10.15] Further, the IPP Ersatzinfinitiv is not obligatory for benefactive helfen and neither for the perception verbs sehen and hören, but it is obligatory for modal verbs. This would actually nicely correspond to the hierarchy proposed, were it not for the verb lassen, which allows for both infinitive and participle (10.12). However, according to Enzinger (2012: 34) the sentence with a participle only allows for a permissive reading, so that would still fit the designation ‘causative’ on the hierarchy.
| (10.12) | a. | Sie hat mich die Kleider waschen lassen. (causative = Sie verursacht, dass ich die Kleider wasche.) (permissive = Sie erlaubt, dass ich die Kleider wasche.) |
| b. | Sie hat mich die Kleider waschen gelassen. (only permissive = Sie hat erlaubt, dass ich die Kleider wasche.) |
[10.16] It has been widely observed that there is a wide variety of uses of the lassen + Infinitiv construction in German (e.g. Eisenberg 2006a: 369-371; Kotůlková 2010a; Pitteroff 2014). In this chapter I will distinguish nine different diatheses that all use the lassen + Infinitiv construction, as summarised in Table 10.1. These nine diatheses are reduced to six groups, which I have given a German name (as shown in the table). However, these can be further reduced to basically three different options: a reflexive epistemic passive, expressing possibility (Möglichkeitspassiv), a reflexive modal passive, expressing permission (Permissivpassiv, Permissivinversiv) and a non-reflexive causative (Permissivkausativ, Passivkausativ). I will succinctly summarise these different options here. For a detailed discussion, please see the sections as indicated in the table.
| Section | Remapping | German Name | Reflexive | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10.5.1 | [ N | – ] | Möglichkeitspassiv | yes | possibility |
| 10.5.2 | [ NP | –P ] | Möglichkeitspassiv | yes | possibility |
| 10.5.3 | [ NA | pN ] | Möglichkeitspassiv | yes | possibility |
| 10.5.4 | [ NA | pN ] | Permissivpassiv | yes | permission |
| 10.5.5 | [ ND | pN ] | Permissivpassiv | yes | permission |
| 10.5.6 | [ NDA | pNA ] | Permissivpassiv | yes | permission |
| 10.9.1 | [ ND | AN ] | Permissivinversiv | yes | permission |
| 10.6.2 | [ –N | NA ] | Permissivkausativ | no | causation/permission |
| 10.6.1 | [ –NA | NpA ] | Passivkausativ | no | causation |
[10.17] The Möglichkeitspassiv is typically attesed with transitive verbs with a clear agent, like besteigen ‘to climb’ (10.13). The accusative (den Berg) is promoted to nominative subject and the erstwhile subject is demoted to an optional von prepositional phrase. A reflexive pronoun is necessary, and the diathesis has an epistemic meaning expressing the possibility of the action. With agentive intransitive verbs, like wandern ‘to hike’ (10.14 a), this diathesis leads to an unpersönlicher Möglichkeitspassiv, often even without a valency-simulating es. The nominative subject is removed and an evaluative adverbial like gut is necessary. Verbs with a governed preposition, like warten auf ‘to wait for’ (10.14 b) are slightly different as (i) the governed preposition is retained, (ii) the valency simulating es is impossible and (iii) no evaluative adverbial is necessary (10.14 b).
| (10.13) | möglichkeitspassiv | |
| a. | Der Besucher besteigt den Berg. | |
| b. | Der Berg lässt sich (von dem Besucher) besteigen. (= Es ist (für den Besucher) möglich den Berg zu besteigen.) |
|
| (10.14) | unpersönlicher möglichkeitspassiv | |
| a. | Der Besucher wandert dort. Dort lässt (es) sich gut wandern. |
|
| b. | Der Besucher wartet auf ein Tattoo. Auf ein Tattoo lässt sich warten.166 |
|
[10.18] The Permissivpassiv has some similarities to the previous Möglichkeitspassiv, but enough differences to consider it a different diathesis. Both are passives and both need a reflexive pronoun, but (i) the semantics, (ii) the role remapping, and (iii) the verbs that use the Permissivpassiv are completely different. Semantically, the Permissivpassiv expresses permission, sometimes almost causation. As for remapping of roles, this diathesis most typically promotes datives to nominative subject, like with schenken ‘to gift’ (10.15 a). There is a special group of select transitive verbs in which the accusative is promoted to nominative subject, like belustigen ‘to amuse’ (10.15 b). A second special group of verbs, like gefallen ‘to please’ (10.16), promotes the dative, but demotes the original nominative to an accusative, not to a prepositional phrase (i.e. an inversive diathesis, called Permissivinversiv here).
| (10.15) | permissivpassiv | |
| a. | Mein Vater schenkt mir ein Fahrrad. Ich lasse mir ein Fahrrad schenken (von meinem Vater). |
|
| b. | Der Clown belustigt mich. Ich lasse mich von dem Clown belustigen. |
|
| (10.16) | permissivinversiv | |
| a. | Dein Ton gefällt mir nicht. | |
| b. | Ich lasse mir deinen Ton nicht gefallen. | |
[10.19] The Permissivkausativ and the closely related Passivkausativ add a new participant to the sentence who causes to event to happen. Although both causatives are similar, there are various differences between the two variants of the causative. First, the erstwhile nominative is demoted to an accusative in the Permissivkausativ (10.17), while it is demoted to an optional von prepositional phrase in the passivkausativ (10.18). Besides the different in role remapping, there is also a difference in applicability. Namely, there are various verbs that allow for a Permissivkausativ but not for a Passivkausativ. For examples, the verb ausziehen ‘to take off, to undress’ (10.18 b,c) is not compatible with a Passivkausativ. Finally, the Permissivkausativ can both have a causative (10.17 a) and a permissive (10.17 b) reading, while the passivkausativ cannot have a permissive interpretation, only the causative interpretation is possible (10.18 a).
| (10.17) | permissivkausativ | |
| a. | Der Schüler schreibt einen Test. Der Lehrer lässt den Schüler einen Test schreiben. (= Der Lehrer verursacht, dass der Schüler einen Test schreibt.) |
|
| b. | Der Schüler geht nach Hause. Der Lehrer lässt den Schüler nach Hause gehen. (= Der Lehrer erlaubt den Schüler nach Hause zu gehen.) |
|
| (10.18) | passivkausativ | ||
| a. | Der Schüler putzt den Tisch. Der Lehrer lässt den Tisch (von dem Schüler) putzen. (= Der Lehrer versursacht, dass der Tisch (von dem Schüler) geputzt wird.) |
||
| b. | Der Sohn zieht die Jacke aus. Der Vater lässt seinen Sohn die Jacke auszeihen. |
||
| c. | * | Der Vater lässt die Jacke (von seinem Sohn) ausziehen . | |
[10.20] Not attested.
[10.21] The traditional modal verbs dürfen/können/mögen/müssen/sollen/wollen and the modal-like light verbs werden and brauchen can all be used in constructions with infinitives. There do not seem to be any restrictions on which verbs can occur as infinitives in such constructions.
[10.22] The modal verbs dürfen/können/mögen/müssen/sollen/wollen are extensively discussed in the German grammatical literature and will therefore not discussed in any detail here (e.g. see Duden-Grammatik 2009: 556ff.). In a construction with infinitives, these modal verbs induce an IPP Ersatzinfinitiv (10.19).
| (10.19) | a. | Er will das Haus bauen. |
| b. | Er hat das Haus bauen wollen (*gewollt). | |
| c. | Es ist bekannt, dass er das Haus bauen hat wollen (*hat gewollt). |
[10.23] An interesting supplementary effect that these modal verbs have on diathesis concerns the interpretation of the haben + Partizip construction. This construction has two different interpretations (10.20 a), either Perfekt (see Section 9.4.8) or Pertinenzpassiv (see Section 9.5.20). In most uses, the Perfekt interpretation is the preferred reading. However, with an additional modal light verb only the Pertinenzpassiv interpretation is possible (10.20 b).
| (10.20) | a. | Er hat sein Auto repariert. (Perfekt = Er repariert sein Auto, und das ist abgeschlossen.) (Pertinenzpassiv = Irgendjemand repariert das Auto für ihn.) |
| b. | Er will sein Auto repariert haben. (nur Pertinenzpassiv = Er will, dass sein Auto repariert wird.) |
[10.24] The light verb werden is traditionally classified as a temporal auxiliary use for future reference, but is only very rarely used as a real temporal future. The Präsens is mostly used for future time reference in German (10.21 a). It is probably better to consider the werden + Infinitiv construction together with the other modal verbs as the usage typically includes a modal implicature of expectation and/or presumption (10.21 b). There is a long discussion about the merits of this classification of werden as a modal verb in the German grammatical tradition (e.g. Fabricius-Hansen 1986: 141ff). Crucially, the werden + Infinitiv can also be used with past-time reference (10.21 c).
| (10.21) | a. | Der Feind greift morgen vielleicht an. |
| b. | Der Feind wird morgen vielleicht angreifen. | |
| c. | Seine Mutter wird sich damals gefreut haben.167 |
[10.25] It is undecidable whether the werden + Infinitiv construction induces an IPP Ersatzinfinitiv because constructions that would trigger such an IPP do not exist. A werden + Infinitiv (10.22 a) is incompatible with a stacked participle construction, like a sein perfekt (10.22 b), a werden passive (10.22 c), or a gehören passive (10.22 d).
| (10.22) | a. | Die Biene wird mich stechen. (= werden + Infinitiv Futur) |
|
| b. | * | Die Biene ist mich stechen geworden/werden. (= stack of werden + Infinitiv Futur +> sein + Partizip Perfekt) |
|
| c. | * | Ich werde (von der Biene) stechen geworden/werden. (= stack of werden + Infinitiv Futur +> werden + Partizip Vorgangspassiv)168 |
|
| d. | * | Ich gehöre stechen geworden/werden. (= stack of werden + Infinitiv Futur +> gehören + Partizip Normpassiv) |
[10.26] The verb brauchen is typically used with zu + Infinitiv (10.23 a), see Section 11.4.4. However, it also occurs without zu (10.23 b). Whether there is any semantic difference between these two options needs more in-depth investigation. Used without zu it seems only logical to include brauchen in the set of modal verbs (cf. Duden-Grammatik 2009: 556). The light verb brauchen is similar to the modal verbs in that it induces an IPP Ersatzinfinitiv (10.23 c).
| (10.23) | a. | Du brauchst nur noch zu unterschreiben. |
| b. | Du brauchst nur noch unterschreiben. | |
| c. | Du hättest doch nur noch unterschreiben brauchen! |
[10.27] The absentive is a construction that expresses that the subject participant is currently not present because of some activity that is being pursued. The grammatical concept was originally proposed by de Groot (2000). For German, this phenomenon is widely discussed in the literature (cf. Vogel 2007: 269ff.; Abraham 2008; König 2009). An activity like schwimmen ‘to swim’ can be used in the infinitive with the light verb sein to indicate absence because of the swimming (10.24 a). This construction is typically used with intransitive verbs, though there does not seem to be a strict prohibition of more complex activities with more arguments (10.24 b). This construction does not induce an IPP Ersatzinfinitiv (10.24 c).
| (10.24) | a. | Ich schwimme. Ich bin schwimmen. |
| b. | Ich bringe dem Nachbarn den Teller zurück. Ich bin nur mal kurz dem Nachbarn den Teller zurückbringen. |
|
| c. | Ich bin dem Nachbarn den Teller zurückbringen gewesen (*sein). |
[10.28] The absentive can only be used with verbs that clearly include agency, so typical patientive verbs like einschlafen ‘to fall asleep’ do not allow for this construction (see Section 9.4.2). In contrast, a verb like schlafen ‘to sleep’ does allow for an absentive construction, though it needs a suitable context (10.25 b). Note that not all verbs with a haben Perfekt (often analysed as ‘agentive’, see Section 9.4.1) allow for an absentive, for example sitzen ‘to sit’ does not (10.25 c).
| (10.25) | a. | * | Ich bin einschlafen. |
| b. | Ich bin dann mal schlafen! | ||
| c. | * | Ich bin auf den Stuhl sitzen. |
[10.29] Attested Verbs
[10.30] Parallel to the sein + Infinitiv absentive, the light verbs gehen ‘to go’ and fahren ‘to drive’ can also be used to indicate (intended) absence because of an activity (10.26 a). In accordance to their lexical meaning, these two light verbs place a focus on the movement away, leading to the absence. I propose the term abitive (from Lat. abire ‘depart, go away’) for this construction. This abitive construction does not induce an IPP Ersatzinfinitiv (10.26 c).
| (10.26) | a. | Er besucht seinen Freund. Er geht/fährt seinen Freund besuchen. |
|
| b. | * | Er geht einschlafen. | |
| c. | Er ist seinen Freund besuchen gegangen/gefahren (*gehen/fahren) |
[10.31] Attested Verbs
[10.32] Contrasting to the gehen/fahren +Infinitiv abitive there is also a kommen + Infinitiv construction to express a movement towards a location where an activity takes place (10.27 a). I propose the term aditive (from Lat. adire ‘approach’) for this construction. This aditive construction does not induce an IPP Ersatzinfinitiv (10.27 b).
| (10.27) | a. | Er kommt hier immer die Zeitung lesen. |
| b. | Er ist hier immer die Zeitung lesen gekommen (*kommen) |
[10.33] Attested Verbs
[10.34] The tun + Infinitiv construction (Schwarz 2004) is considered substandard and frowned upon in written German (10.28 a). However, it is widespread in German dialects and also frequent in the spoken standard language, expressing a progressive aspect. The acceptability is strongly improved for many German speakers with fronting of infinitive (10.28 b) (Schwarz 2004: 15-18). There does not appear to be any restriction as to which verbs can occur in this construction.
| (10.28) | a. | ? | Ich tu dir das Buch schenken. |
| b. | Schenken tu ich dir das Buch. |
[10.35] The construction bleiben + Infinitiv (cf. Eisenberg 2006a: 351; Engel 1996: 476) is typicaly used with position verbs like sitzen ‘to sit’ or liegen ‘to lie’ (10.29 a). This construction with bleiben indicates that the position is being maintained. Some verbs denoting activities also appear possible, but examples are difficult to find (10.29 b), see also further examples below. Note that the combination of bleiben with an infinitive of a position verb is often considered to be a single word in german orthography (10.29 c). This construction does not induce an IPP Ersatzinfinitiv (10.29 c).
| (10.29) | a. | Nora bleibt morgens immer ewig liegen. (Schlücker 2007: 142) | |
| b. | ? | Er bleibt ihr Briefe schicken. | |
| c. | Nora ist morgens immer liegengeblieben (*liegenbleiben). |
[10.36] Attested Verbs
[10.37] Examples
[10.38] A special construction using haben with infinitive describes a situation in which the subject is exempt of any difficulty, so I propose to call this construction exemptive (from Lat. exemptus ‘freed of’). This construction obligatorily needs an adverb, most frequently leicht ‘easy’ (10.30 a) or gut ‘well’ (10.30 b). Only incidentally other adverbs are attested, like klug ‘clever’ (10.30 c). The main verbs seem to be restricted to intransitive verbs, most frequent are reden ‘to talk’ and lachen ‘to smile’. The only examples with transitive verbs involve incorporated objects, which are argueably intransitive (10.30 d).
| (10.30) | a. | Er hat leicht reden. Nike hatte leicht protzen.174 |
| b. | Er hat gut lachen. Der Kanzler hat gut schimpfen.175 |
|
| c. | Du hast klug reden.176 | |
| d. | Wer im Rohr sitzt, hat gut Pfeifen schneiden.177 |
[10.39] Attested Verbs
[10.40] Examples
[10.41] The verb lernen ‘to learn’ can both occur in a construction with an infinitive (10.31 a) and with zu plus infinitive (10.31 b), see also Section 11.2.2.
| (10.31) | a. | Das Baby läuft. Das Baby lernt laufen. |
| b. | Ich schreibe meiner Oma monatlich einen Brief. Ich lerne meiner Oma monatlich einen Brief (zu) schreiben. |
[10.42] The light verb legen with infinitive only appears to be used in a single expression with the main verb schlafen ‘to sleep’ (10.32).
| (10.32) | Er legt sich schlafen. |
[10.43] Attested Verbs
[10.44] When used with intransitive verbs like arbeiten ‘to work’ (10.33 a), the construction lassen + Infinitiv leads to an impersonal construction removing the nominative subject. This construction obligatorily includes a reflexive pronoun and an adverbial phrase expressing an evaluation (10.33 b). The expected valency-simulating pronoun es is typically present, but it seems also possible to leave it out. The conditioning of the presence or absence of es needs more investigation (cf. Kunze 1996: 649). Semantically, this diatheses adds an epistemic notion of possibility to the meaning of the verb. There is a clear parallel to the impersonal construction without lassen in (10.33 c), see Section 8.5.1. The lassen + Infinitiv diathesis invokes an Ersatzinfinitiv (10.33 d).
| (10.33) | a. | Ich arbeite zuhause. |
| b. | Zuhause lässt (es) sich gut arbeiten. | |
| c. | Zuhause arbeitet es sich gut. | |
| d. | Früher hat es sich hier immer gut arbeiten lassen. |
[10.45] Although it is possible to find examples without adverbial, these always seem to have a strong evaluative implicature (cf. Section 8.3.1). For example, in the examples in (10.34) the implication is that the life or dreams are good.
[10.46] This diathesis lassen + sich + Infiniv + Adverbiale is structurally a stack of two constructions (see Section 2.5 for the notion ‘stack’). It combines an impersonal reflexive with adverbial (10.35 a), see Section 8.5.1, and a lassen + Infinitiv diathesis (10.35 b), see Section 10.6.2. However, the resulting combination of these two diatheses is semantically not transparent. The lassen + Infinitiv diatheses has two different interpretations, a causative (10.35 c) and a permissive (10.35 d). Neither of these interpretations leads to the combined meaning of the lassen + sich + Infiniv + Adverbial stack as in (10.34 a). For that reason I consider this combination to be a separate grammaticalised diathesis, i.e. a fixed stack.
| (10.35) | a. | Zuhause arbeitet es sich gut. |
| b. | Sie lässt mich arbeiten. | |
| c. | (= Sie sorgt dafür, dass ich arbeite.) | |
| d. | (= Sie lässt mich in Ruhe um zu arbeiten.) |
[10.47] This diathesis is not possible with many patientive intransitive verbs like platzen ‘to burst’ (10.36 a,b) or bluten ‘to bleed’ (10.36 c,d). Note that this group of patientive intransitives is a different group of patientive intransitives that takes a sein + Partizip Perfect (cf. Section 9.2.6).
| (10.36) | a. | Der Ballon platzt. Der Ballon ist geplatzt. | |
| b. | * | Zuhause lässt es sich gut platzen. | |
| c. | Der Patient blutet. Der Patient hat geblutet. |
||
| d. | * | Hier lässt es sich schwer bluten. |
[10.48] Attested Verbs
[10.49] Examples
[10.50] Verbs with governed prepositional phrases, like zweifeln an ‘to doubt something’ (10.37 a), show a similar diathesis as pure intransitives (see the previous Section 10.5.1). However, there is no adverbial evaluation necessary with these verbs. The status of the valency-simulating es is unclear, though my impression is that with governed prepositional phrases it is more widespread to leave es out (10.37 b). Whether there really is a difference in the status of es depending on the presence of governed prepositional phrases needs more research.
| (10.37) | a. | Ich zweifele an der Ernsthaftigkeit der Aussage. |
| b. | An der Ernsthaftigkeit der Aussage lässt ?(es) sich zweifeln. |
[10.51] This diathesis appears to be possible with almost all intransitive verbs with a governed preposition. I have only been able to find a few exceptions, like stinken nach ‘to stink of something’ (10.38).
| (10.38) | a. | Der Müll stinkt nach Fisch. | |
| b. | * | Nach Fisch lässt es sich stinken. |
[10.52] Attested Verbs
[10.53] With most transitive verbs the light verb lassen with a reflexive pronoun and an infinitive results structurally in a passive diathesis with an epistemic interpretation that something is possible (10.39). A small group of transitive verbs invoke a different interpretation, as discussed in the next Section 10.5.4. Compared to the previously discussed intransitive variant (see Section 10.5.1, there is (i) no adverbial evaluation necessary and (ii) the agent can be retained as an optional prepositional phrase with von. This diathesis invokes an Ersatzinfinitiv (10.39 c).
| (10.39) | a. | Ich schließe den Schrank. |
| b. | Der Schrank lässt sich schließen (von mir). (= Es ist möglich, dass ich den Schrank schließe.) |
|
| c. | Gestern hat sich der Schrank noch schließen lassen. |
[10.54] Just as discussed previously with intransitives (see Section 10.5.1), this diathesis might seem to be a transparent combination of a reflexive anticausative (10.40 a), see Section 6.5.2, and a lassen + Infinitiv diathesis (10.40 b), see Section 10.6.2. However, semantically the combination of both leads to a different interpretation, so the combination is arguably a new construction.
| (10.40) | a. | Der Schrank schließt sich (von alleine). | |
| b. | ? | Ich lasse den Schrank sich schließen. |
[10.55] It is even possible to find ambiguous constructions like (10.41 a), see also Kunze (1996: 650ff.). In this example, the transparent combination of a lassen causative with a self-inflicting reflexive leads to the causative interpretation in (10.41 b), while the fixed stack as discussed in this section leads to the epistemic interpretation (‘possibility’) in (10.41 c).
| (10.41) | a. | Der König lässt sich tragen. |
| b. | (= Der König sorgt dafür, dass er selbst getragen wird.) | |
| c. | (= Es ist möglich den König zu tragen.) |
[10.56] Verbs like übersehen ‘to overlook’ (10.42 a) or erläutern ‘to elucidate’ (10.42 b) only appear to allow for this epistemic interpretation with an additional evaluative adverbial like leicht ‘easy’ or schwer ‘difficult’ (cf. Section 8.5.2). More research is needed to establish what kind of verbs necessarily need such an additional adverbial.
| (10.42) | a. | Der Dozent überseht den Rechtschreibfehler. Solch ein Rechtschreibfehler lässt sich leicht (vom Dozenten) übersehen. |
| b. | Der Dozent erläutert den Begriff. Der Begriff lässt sich nur schwer (vom Dozenten) erläutern. |
[10.57] Attested Verbs
[10.58] Examples
[10.59] For some of the transitive verbs the lassen + sich + Infinitiv diathesis has a different interpretation from the previously described epistemic passive (see Section 10.5.3). For example, this diathesis of empören ‘to appall’ (10.43 a,b) has a permissive interpretation (‘allowing something to happen’) (10.43 c), not the epistemic interpretation (‘it is possible that something happens’) discussed above (10.43 d). This interpretation is attested for a subset of those verbs that also allow for a reflexive conversive (see Section 6.5.8).
| (10.43) | a. | Der Witz empört mich. |
| b. | Ich lasse mich nicht von diesem Witz empören. | |
| c. | (= Ich erlaube nicht, dass ich von diesem Witz empört werde.) | |
| d. | (≠ Es ist nicht möglich, dass ich von diesem Witz empört werde.) |
[10.60] Various verbs like empören ‘to appall’ describing negative emotions strongly prefer an additional negation with the lassen + sich + Infinitiv diathesis (10.44 a). Reversely, verbs describing positive emotions like begeistern ‘to enthuse’ typically do not use a negation with this diathesis (10.44 b).
| (10.44) | a. | ? | Ich lasse mich von diesem Witz empören. |
| b. | Ich lasse mich von diesem Witz begeistern. |
[10.61] Attested Verbs
[10.62] Examples
[10.63] A few verbs, like helfen ‘to help’ (10.45 a) and gratulieren ‘to congratulate’ (10.45 b) show a dative reflexive passive with a permissive interpretation. This diathesis is much more common with an additional accusative, as extensively discussed in the next Section 10.5.6. There seem to be only very few verbs with a dative (but not accusative) that allow for this passive diathesis. Various other verbs with a dative show a reflexive inversive diathesis, to be discussed separately (see Section 10.9.1).
| (10.45) | a. | Sie helft mir. Ich lasse mir von ihr helfen. (= Ich erlaube, dass sie mir hilft.) |
| b. | Sie gratuliert mir. Ich lasse mir von ihr gratulieren. (= ich erlaube, dass sie mir gratuliert.) |
[10.64] Attested Verbs
[10.65] Examples
[10.66] Notes
[10.67] The verb kündigen ‘to terminate, to resign’ (10.46) is a special case, because it takes an accusative reflexive pronoun (10.46 a). However, this might be explained by the flexibility to use the verb either with a dative or an accusative argument (10.46 b).
| (10.46) | a. | Ich lasse mich (vom Chef) kündigen. |
| b. | Der Chef kündigt mir/mich. |
[10.68] Verbs with both a dative and an accusative, like schenken ‘to gift’ show a parallel passive diathesis to the lassen reflexive passive (see Section 10.5.4), but now the dative is promoted to nominative subject (10.47). Semantically this diathesis (10.47 b) has a clear permissive meaning. Syntactically, there seems to be a close connection to the bekommen + Partizip dative passive (see Section 9.5.19), which – though – lacks the permissive meaning (10.47 c).
| (10.47) | a. | Der Verkäufer schenkt mir den Rechner. |
| b. | Ich lasse mir den Rechner schenken (vom Verkäufer). | |
| c. | Ich bekomme den Rechner geschenkt (vom Verkäufer). |
[10.69] This diathesis is also possible with other datives, like possessive datives (10.48 a) or benefactive datives (10.48 b). Like all lassen + Infinitiv constructions, this diathesis invokes an Ersatzinfinitiv (10.48 c).
| (10.48) | a. | Der Friseur schneidet meine Haare. Der Friseur schneidet mir die Haare. Ich lasse mir die Haare schneiden (vom Friseur). |
| b. | Mein Vater kocht mir eine Suppe. Ich lasse mir (von meinem Vater) eine Suppe kochen. |
|
| c. | Ich habe mir die Haare schneiden lassen. |
[10.70] In this construction the semantics are rather transparently related to the lassen + Infinitive causative/permissive diathesis (Section 10.6.2). This can be clearly seen when a different dative recipient is used, like sein Freund ‘his friend’ (10.49 a). First apply the lassen + Infinitiv causative (10.49 b) and subsequently replace the recipient with a self-inflicting reflexive pronoun mir (10.49 c). The result is semantically the same as the fixed stack discussed above, repeated here (10.49 d). However, there are two key differences. First, structurally there is a crucial difference in the expression of the erstwhile agent Verkäufer ‘seller’, either being an accusative (10.49 c) or a prepositional phrase (10.49 d).
| (10.49) | a. | Der Verkäufer schenkt seinem Freund den Rechner. |
| b. | Ich lasse den Verkäufer seinem Freund den Rechner schenken. | |
| c. | Ich lasse den Verkäufer mir den Rechner schenken. | |
| d. | Ich lasse mir vom Verkäufer den Rechner schenken. |
[10.71] Second, another difference to the transparent stack of causative plus self-inflicting reflexive (10.49 c) is that the fixed stack of lassen + sich (Dativ) + Infinitive does not allow for a different recipient (10.50). In summary, this fixed stack is different from the transparent combination, but it is semantically closely related to it.
| (10.50) | a. | Der Verkäufer schenkt seinem Freund den Rechner. | |
| b. | * | Ich lasse seinem Freund den Rechner schenken (von dem Verkäufer). |
[10.72] Attested Verbs
[10.73] Examples
[10.74] The lassen + Infinitiv causative diathesis (see the next Section 10.6.2) can be used with almost all German verbs. With some verbs this diathesis results in a construction with two accusatives (10.51 a). However, such double accusatives as produced by this diathesis can be resolved by optionally changing the new accusative to a von prepositional phrase (10.51 b), or even dropping it altogether (10.51 c), resulting in an embedded anticausative reading with unknown agent (cf. Enzinger 2012: 26). Note that this is only possible with the causative reading and not with the permissive reading of the lassen + Infinitiv diathesis (10.51 c).
| (10.51) | a. | Der Mitarbeiter wäscht die Teller. Sie lässt den Mitarbeiter die Teller waschen. |
| b. | Sie lässt die Teller von dem Mitarbeiter waschen. | |
| c. | Sie lässt die Teller waschen. (= Sie sorgt dafür, dass die Teller gewaschen werden.) (≠ Sie erlaubt, dass die Teller gewaschen werden.) |
[10.75] This construction of lassen + Infinitiv with a von agent phrase might very well be considered a different diathesis. For example, it is impossible with some verbs (Nedjalkov 1976: 7; Enzinger 2012: 27) like ausziehen ‘to take off’ (10.52). This impossibility seems to be widespread with verbs that allow an endoreflexive diathesis (see Section 6.7.1), but that has to be investigated further. With a stacked endoreflexive diathesis the von replacement is perfectly possible (10.52 d). The von replacement also seems to be restricted (or maybe even impossible) for verbs that do not have an accusative argument, like antworten ‘to answer’ (10.53).
| (10.52) | a. | Sein Sohn zieht die Jacke aus. | |
| b. | Er lässt seinen Sohn die Jacke ausziehen. | ||
| c. | * | Er lässt die Jacke von seinem Sohn ausziehen. | |
| d. | Er zieht sich aus. Er lässt sich von seinem Sohn ausziehen. |
| (10.53) | a. | Der Lehrer antwortet dem Schüler. | |
| b. | Der Dekan lässt den Lehrer dem Schüler antworten. | ||
| c. | ? | Der Dekan lässt dem Schüler vom Lehrer antworten. | |
| d. | ? | Der Dekan lässt dem Schüler antworten. |
[10.76] Although the lassen +Infinitiv is widely acknowledged in German grammar as a causative, the actual semantics are more variable than that. Basically there seem to be two major interpretations, a causative and a permissive (10.54 b). Enzinger (2012: 6-7) calls the permissive reading Kontinuativ as this interpretation typically expresses that a situation is allowed to persist or continue. This diathesis typically invokes the IPP Ersatzinfinitiv (10.54 c). However, the use of participle gelassen is possible (10.54 d), but seems to be restricted to the permissive interpretation (Enzinger 2012: 34).
| (10.54) | a. | Ich wasche die Kleider. |
| b. | Sie lässt mich die Kleider waschen. (causative = Sie verursacht, dass ich die Kleider wasche.) (permissive = Sie erlaubt, dass ich die Kleider wasche.) |
|
| c. | Sie hat mich die Kleider waschen lassen. | |
| d. | Sie hat mich die Kleider waschen gelassen. (permissive = Sie hat erlaubt, dass ich die Kleider wasche.) |
[10.77] Durative intransitives like schlafen ‘to sleep’ prefer a permissive reading (10.55 a), while punctual intransitives like einschlafen ‘to fall asleep’ prefer a causative reading (10.55 b). However, this appears only to a preference, not a semantic necessity. There are also clearly ambiguous examples, like arbeiten ‘to work’ (10.55 c). Various other factors influencing the possibly interpretations are discussed by Enzinger (2012: 33-).
| (10.55) | a. | Ich lasse das Kind schlafen. (= Ich erlaube, dass das Kind weiter schläft.) |
| b. | Ich lasse das Kind einschlafen. (= Ich sorge dafür, dass das Kind einschläft.) |
|
| c. | Ich lasse das Kind arbeiten. (= Ich erlaube, dass das kind weiter arbeitet.) (= Ich sorge dafür, dass das Kind arbeitet.) |
[10.78] This diathesis can be applied to verbs of various argument structures. There is always a new nominative introduced, and the old nominative is demoted to an accusative. Other arguments are simply retained. If there is already an accusative present as in then the resulting construction simply has two accusative constituents. Such double accusatives are unusual in German because most role-remappings lead to a chain of remappings to not end up with identically marked constituents (see Section 2.6 on the notion of a ‘chain’). Any datives (10.56 a) or prepositional phrases (10.56 b) are simply left untouched by this diathesis.
| (10.56) | a. | Ich schreibe meiner Oma einen Brief. Meine Mutter lässt mich meiner Oma einen Brief schreiben. |
| b. | Der Vater ärgert sich über die vielen Staus. Die Nachrichten lassen meinen Vater sich über die vielen Staus ärgern. |
[10.79] There are various verbs that do not allow for this diathesis (cf. Nedjalkov 1976: 17), like gefallen ‘to like’ (10.57 a,b) that have a non-agentive nominative subject. However, the restrictions to the applicability of the lassen causative needs more in-depth investigation.
| (10.57) | a. | Der Schlitten gefällt dem Jungen. | |
| b. | * | Der Verkäufer lässt den Schlitten dem Jungen gefallen. |
[10.80] Attested Verbs
[10.81] The verb schicken allows for a construction with an infinitive (10.58). This diathesis expresses not a direct causation, but more a directive to somebody to do something. This diathesis does not invoke the IPP Ersatzinfinitiv (10.58 c).
| (10.58) | a. | Er schläft |
| b. | Ich schicke ihn schlafen. | |
| c. | Ich habe ihn schlafen geschickt (*schicken). |
[10.82] The meaning of the light verb schicken in this diathesis is rather close to the meaning of the full verb schicken ‘to send’ (10.59 a). The diathesis with infinitive seems to be restricted to agentive intransitives (10.59 b,c).
| (10.59) | a. | Ich schicke ihn nach Hause. | |
| b. | * | Er schickte mich einschlafen. | |
| c. | * | Er schickte mich fallen. |
[10.83] There is a frequent sentence structure of schicken with the infinitive of the transitive verb holen ‘to fetch something’. Other than this verb there do not appear to be many transitive examples.
| (10.60) | a. | Ich hole Bier. |
| b. | Er schickt mich Bier holen. |
[10.84] Attested Verbs
[10.85] Examples
[10.86] The verb machen can be used with an infinitive to express a causative meaning. This typically is found with intransitives, like lachen ‘to laugh’ (10.61 a), though incidental transitives are also attested, like vergessen ‘to forget’ (10.61 b). Although this construction might look like an English calque (‘he makes me laugh’), it is already attested in early German examples (10.61 c), so it seems to be an old Germanic construction. This diathesis does not invoke the IPP Ersatzinfinitiv (10.61 d).
| (10.61) | a. | Ich lache. Der Clown macht mich lachen. |
| b. | Ich vergesse die Verabredung. Der Stress macht mich die Verabredung vergessen. |
|
| c. | Das Pulver von eines Schwanen Beiner auf eines Kopf gestreuet soll alsbald die Haar ausfallen machen.(Martin Zeiler, 1659)194 | |
| d. | Der Clown hat mich lachen gemacht (*machen). |
[10.87] Attested Verbs
[10.88] Examples
[10.89] The verb heißen can also be used with an infinitive to express a causative meaning (cf. Engel 1996: 489), though this is rather old-fashioned (10.62 a,b). This diathesis does not invoke the IPP Ersatzinfinitiv (10.62 c).
| (10.62) | a. | Er kniete nieder. |
| b. | Der Henker hieß ihn niederknieen. | |
| c. | Der Henker hat ihn niederknieen geheißen (*heißen). |
[10.90] Examples
[10.91] The following perception verbs (Lat. verba sentiendi, German Wahrnehmungsverben) are regularly discussed as a special class in the German grammatical tradition: sehen ‘to see’, hören ‘to hear’ and fühlen/spüren ‘to feel’ (e.g. Eisenberg 2006a: 266; Kotůlková 2010b; Enzinger 2012: 23). These verbs are special because they can occur both in a biclausal construction with a finite dass complement clause and in a monoclausal construction with an infinitive. This class of verbs is not completely homogeneous because only sehen and hören can optionally occur with an IPP Ersatzinfinitiv. I propose to also include the verbs riechen ‘to smell’ and finden ‘to find’ (but in this construction meaning ‘to detect’) in this class verbs, although their use in infinitive constructions is much more restricted.
[10.92] The verb sehen ‘to see’ can both be used with a finite dass complement clause (10.63 a) and with an infinitive construction (10.63 b). This infinitive construction allows for an IPP Ersatzinfinitiv (10.63 c,d).
| (10.63) | a. | Ich sehe, dass du dem Jungen ein Buch gibt. |
| b. | Ich sehe dich dem Jungen ein Buch geben. | |
| c. | Ich habe dich dem Jungen das Buch geben sehen/gesehen. | |
| d. | Die Mutter war sehr ängstlich und hat ständig ihre Kinder unter einem Auto liegen sehen.199 Bei ihrer Flucht habe sie auf den Hoteltreppen viele Leichen liegen gesehen.200 |
[10.93] The verb hören ‘to hear’ can both be used with a dass complement clause (10.64 a) and with an infinitive construction (10.64 b). This infinitive construction allows for an IPP Ersatzinfinitiv (10.64 c,d).
| (10.64) | a. | Ich höre, dass du das Lied singst. |
| b. | Ich höre dich das Lied singen. | |
| c. | Ich habe dich das Lied singen hören/gehört. | |
| d. | Während meiner Recherche habe ich Ulrike nicht singen hören.201 Dort hat mich ein Erzieher auf dem Flur singen gehört.202 |
[10.94] The verb fühlen ‘to feel’ can both be used with a dass complement clause (10.65 a) and with an infinitive construction (10.65 b). This infinitive construction does not allow for an IPP Ersatzinfinitiv (10.65 c,d).
| (10.65) | a. | Er fühlt, dass die Ameisen über seinen Arm laufen. |
| b. | Er fühlt die Ameisen über seinen Arm laufen. | |
| c. | Er hat die Ameisen über seinen Arm laufen gefühlt (*fühlen). | |
| d. | Auf so anrührende Weise wie in Asmara haben wir uns selten unterhalten gefühlt.203 |
[10.95] The verb spüren ‘to feel’ can both be used with a dass complement clause (10.66 a) and with an infinitive construction (10.66 b). This infinitive construction does not allow for an IPP Ersatzinfinitiv (10.66 c,d).
| (10.66) | a. | Er spürt, dass die Ameisen über seinen Arm laufen. |
| b. | Er spürt die Ameisen über seinen Arm laufen. | |
| c. | Er hat die Ameisen über seinen Arm laufen gespürt (*spüren). | |
| d. | Und Pfauder habe sein Herz bis zum Hals hoch klopfen gespürt.204 |
[10.96] The verb riechen ‘to smell’ can be used with a dass complement clause (10.67 a) and in very few cases it is also attested with an infinitive construction (10.67 b). This infinitive construction does not allow for an IPP Ersatzinfinitiv (10.67 c,d).
| (10.67) | a. | Er riecht, dass seine Mutter Milchreis kocht. |
| b. | Er riecht seine Mutter Milchreis kochen. | |
| c. | Er hat seine Mutter Milchreis kochen gerochen (*riechen). | |
| d. | Er schlug sich querfeldein, nahm meilenweite Umwege in Kauf, wenn er eine noch Stunden entfernte Schwadron Reiter auf sich zukommen roch.205 |
[10.97] Examples
[10.98] The verb finden (literally meaning ‘to find’, but in this construction the meaning is closer to feststellen ‘to detect’) cannot be used with a dass complement clause (10.68 a). However, it is attested with an infinitive, similar to the previous verba sentiendi (10.68 b). This infinitive construction typically occurs with position verbs like stehen, liegen, sitzen. This construction does not allow for an IPP Ersatzinfinitiv (10.68 c,d).
| (10.68) | a. | Er stellte fest (*findet), dass sein Teller auf den Tisch steht. |
| b. | Er fand seinen Teller auf den Tisch stehen. | |
| c. | Er hat seinen Teller auf den Tisch stehen gefunden (*finden). | |
| d. | Er […] rauchte den Joint auf, den er dort liegen fand.208 |
[10.99] Attested verbs
[10.100] Examples
[10.101] The verb lehren ‘to teach’ can be used as a light verb with infinitive. The construction induces a novative diathesis in which a new role (‘the teacher’) is introduced as a nominative and the erstwhile nominative is demoted to accusative (10.69 a,b). Atypically for a light-verb construction, the meaning of the light verb lehren remains completely transparently related to the full verb with the meaning ‘to teach’. There is an alternative construction with zu + Infinitive (see Section 11.2.2) that appears to have a highly similar meaning. More research is needed to elucidate any difference between these two constructions (10.69 b,c). The lehren + Infinitive diathesis does not invoke the IPP Ersatzinfinitiv (10.69 d).
| (10.69) | a. | Der Junge schwimmt. |
| b. | Die Mutter lehrt den Jungen schwimmen | |
| c. | Die Mutter lehrt den Jungen zu schwimmen. | |
| d. | Die Mutter hat den Jungen schwimmen gelehrt. |
[10.102] There does not seem to be any syntactic restriction on the main lexical verbs that can be used in this diathesis. Any verb can be used as long as the verb can sensibly be conceived as something that can be taught. Any other arguments of the lexical verb simply are retained, which regularly leads to double accusatives (10.70 a,b).
| (10.70) | a. | Ich wasche mich. |
| b. | Sie lehrt mich mich waschen. |
[10.103] The verb helfen ‘to help’ can be used as a light verb with infinitive. The construction induces a novative diathesis in which a new role (‘the helper’) is introduced as a nominative and the erstwhile nominative is demoted to dative (10.71 a,b). Atypically for a light-verb construction, the meaning of the light verb helfen remains completely transparently related to the full verb with the meaning ‘to help’. There is an alternative construction with zu + Infinitive (10.71 c), see Section 11.2.2, that appears to highly similar. More research is needed to elucidate any difference between these two constructions. The helfen + Infinitive diathesis allows the IPP Ersatzinfinitiv (10.71 d).
| (10.71) | a. | Ich trage den Koffer. |
| b. | Er hilft mir den Koffer tragen. | |
| c. | Er hilft mir den Koffer zu tragen. | |
| d. | Er hat mir den Koffer tragen geholfen. Er hat mir den Koffer tragen helfen. |
[10.104] Any lexical verb can be used in this construction as long as the verb can sensibly be conceived as something that can be helped with. Other arguments of the lexical verb simply are simply retained. However, the helfen + Infinitive construction seems to be dispreffered when the lexical verb has many arguments (10.72 a,b). It appears to be more typical of construction with only a single lexical argument (10.72 c,d). Note that this constuction is also typically used without the beneficiary of the helping being expressed, i.e. the agent of the lexical verb is dropped (10.72 d).
| (10.72) | a. | Ich schreibe dir einen Brief. | |
| b. | ? | Sie hilft mir dir einen Brief schreiben. | |
| c. | Sie hilft mir schreiben. | ||
| d. | Sie hilft den Brief schreiben. |
[10.105] Not attested.
[10.106] Not attested.
[10.107] Most verbs with a dative (but no accusative) do not allow for a reflexive lassen + Infinitive construction (see Section 10.5.5). The few that do allow for such a construction, like schmecken ‘to taste’ (10.73) show a special diathesis. The dative turns into a nominative subject and the erstwhile nominative turns into an accusative. The resulting construction has a permissive meaning and is clearly related to the reflexive lassen + Infinitive passive diatheses for ditransitive verbs (see Section 10.5.6)
| (10.73) | a. | Das Bärenfleisch schmeckt mir. |
| b. | Ich lasse mir das Bärenfleisch schmecken.211 |
[10.108] In exceptional cases, a possessor dative (see Section 4.8.3) can also be used in this diathesis, like with wachsen ‘to grow’ (10.74).
| (10.74) | a. | Mein Bart wächst. |
| b. | Der Bart wächst mir. | |
| c. | Ich lasse mir den Bart wachsen. |
[10.109] Attested Verbs
[10.110] Examples
[10.111] The construction of a light verb haben with an infinitive (cf. Hole 2002: 183-185) is attested with various position verbs like hängen (10.75 a). Such constructions obligatorily need a locational phrase (10.75 b). The hanging object is expressed as an accusative, and the nominative subject of the haben + Infinitive construction is actually a possessor dative of the location (10.75 c,d), see Section 5.8.10. This diathesis does not invoke the IPP Ersatzinfinitiv (10.75 e).
| (10.75) | a. | Er hat einen Tropfen an der Nase hängen. | |
| b. | * | Er hat einen Tropfen hängen. | |
| c. | Ein Tropfen hängt ihm an der Nase. | ||
| d. | Ein Tropfen hängt an seiner Nase. | ||
| e. | Er hat einen Tropfen an der Nase hängen gehabt (*haben). |
[10.112] The new nominative subject seems to have multiple possibly origins. It mostly is the possessor of the location as in (10.75) but there are also examples in which it is the possessor of the original subject, as in (10.76). In such examples the new subject of the haben + Infinitiv diathesis is not related to a dative. It is not completely clear to me how to best approach such examples.
| (10.76) | Ich habe das Auto auf dem Parkplatz stehen. (= Mein Auto steht auf dem Parkplatz.) (≠ Das Auto steht auf meinen Parkplatz.) (≠ Das Auto steht mir auf dem Parkplatz.) |
[10.113] There is a curious parallel between this diathesis and the haben + am + Infinitiv diathesis, see Section 12.9.1. Both use the light verb haben with an infinitive, they show the same role-remapping, and semantically they are highly similar. The first difference is that the dative in this diathesis is the possessor of the locational object, while the dative in the haben + am + Infinitiv diathesis is the possessor of the nominative. The second difference is of course the extra am preposition. It is a tantalising thought that this am preposition is somehow related to the fact that there is no obligatory location present in that diathesis.
[10.114] Attested Verbs
[10.115] Examples
[11.1] Always modal meanings???
[11.2] gehören + zu + Inf in old examples found sporadically in (Lasch 2018)
[11.3] Is zu simply bound morphology? (Duden-Grammatik 2009: 439): unstressed, not separable, inside separable preverbs
[11.4] Probably best identified as a separate form of the verb, the zu-Infinitiv
[11.5] The element zu is obviously related to the preposition zu, which has a bewildering number of different uses in German.214 Diachronically, there has been a development of an allative meaning ‘towards’ via a purpose meaning ‘with the intend to’ to the usage of zu in complement clauses. This grammaticalisation is widespread worldwide (Haspelmath 1989) and well-described in Germanic languages Los (2005).
[11.6] Only constructions with obligatory coherence here!
[11.7] (Wurmbrand 2003: 318-319; Rapp & Wöllstein 2013)
[11.8] anfangen, aufhören, beginnen, drohen, erlauben, heißen, helfen, lehren, lernen, verbieten, vergessen, verlangen, versprechen, versuchen, wagen with zu both coherent and non-coherent:
[11.9] gedenken (old fashioned)
[11.10] nicht brauchen (= müssen ‘must’) scheinen (= wirken ‘appear’) drohen (= in Gefahr sein ‘to be in danger of’) gedenken (= wollen ‘to want’) verstehen (= können ‘be able to’)
| (11.1) | a. | Der Schüler löst die Aufgaben. [ –NA | NDA ] |
| b. | Es ist bekannt, dass er den Schüler [gelehrt hat] die Aufgaben [zu lösen]. Es ist bekannt, dass er den Schüler die Aufgaben [zu lösen] [gelehrt hat]. |
|
| c. | Es ist bekannt, dass er dem Schüler [geholfen hat] die Aufgaben [zu lösen]. Es ist bekannt, dass er dem Schüler die Aufgaben [zu lösen] [geholfen hat]. |
[11.11] less frequent: koherent with zu + Infinitiv
| (11.2) | a. | Meine Worte gehen unter in den Liedern, die ich euch zu singen lehrte.215 |
| b. | Es ehrt den Historiker, wenn er die Spuren der Geschichte ausleuchtet, sie interpretiert und zu verstehen lehrt.216 |
| (11.3) | a. | Die Leute kümmern sich um dich, solange du ihnen zu gewinnen hilfst.217 |
| b. | Bettelheim verteidigte darin den Märchen-Grusel, der den Kindern eigene Schrecken zu verarbeiten helfe.218 |
[11.12] without zu see Section 10.4.10
| (11.4) | a. | Sie nimmt Platz. |
| b. | Er hat sie geheißen, Platz zu nehmen |
[11.13] (nominative control): Er hat den Brief geschrieben. Er hat den Brief zu schreiben begonnen. [ N | N ]
[11.14] raising?
[11.15] (accusative control): Jesus hat uns Gott neu zu verstehen gelehrt (Berliner Zeitung, 02.04.1994). [ -N | NA ] (dative control): Er verbietet mir den Brief zu schreiben. [ –N | ND ] (preposition control): Er verlangt von mir den Brief zu schreiben. [ –N | NP ]
[11.16] => only obligatory coherent raising/kausativ is geben
[11.17] “lowering” ?!
[11.18] [ NA | pA ] heißen + zu + Infinitiv Subject demotion
[11.19] both coherent and non-coherent
[11.20] Much variation possible?
[11.21] Not attested.
[11.22] drohen is also sometimes mentioned in this context (‘Halbmodale’), but drohen is clearly both coheren and non-coherent.
[11.23] (Holl 2010) “müssen” Interpretation
| (11.5) | a. | Die Schüler lösen die Aufgaben. |
| b. | Die Schüler haben die Aufgaben zu lösen. |
[11.24] Examples
[11.25] “können” Interpretation
[11.26] (Pafel 1989)
[11.27] Only coherent construction possible
[11.28] Additional dative experiencer possible
[11.29] moving towards modal status? Section 10.4.3
[11.30] Always with negation? meaning nicht müssen
[11.31] special meaning gewöhnlich tun
[11.32] (kommen44 in E-VALBU)
[11.33] Typisch für intransitive (‘atelische’) Zustandsverben: liegen, wohnen, leben, glauben, blühen, sprechen, stehen. Die Bedeutung kann umschrieben werden als ‘es passierte etwas, dass dazu führte, dass Subjekt am Ende einen Status hat’, vgl. Nominalisierung: Sie kam zu Reichtum, zu Ehren, zu Ende,
[11.34] Ist es auch möglich mit transitive Verben? Oder ist das immer ein Vollverb kommen mit einem abgekürzten um zu Adverbialsatz?
[11.35] (Jäger 2013)
[11.36] “Insgesamt beinhalten mehr als 77% aller Korpusbelege für den bekommen-Komplex als Infinitv ein Wahrnehmungsverb” (Jäger 2013: 83)
[11.37] “Die Klasse von Verben, die nach den Wahrnehmungsverben am häufigsten mit dem bekommen-Komplex auftritt, lässt sich im weitesten Sinn als Konsumverben characterisieren. […] insgesamt zeichnen die Konsumverben für 16,34% der Belege verantwortlich.” (Jäger 2013: 161)
[11.38] Handlungsverben 5,6% (Jäger 2013: 201)
tun, packen, sprechen, greifen
Ich habe mancherlei zu sehen bekommen
[11.39] Impersonal construction seem to be very rare (contrary to the claim in Holl 2010: 18)
[11.40] I have not been able to find more examples
[11.41] no es!
[11.42] very rare
[11.43] With dative-verbs possible, though only with very few incidental examples (contrary to the claim in Holl 2010: 18).
[11.44] also heißen, but not always coheren
[11.45] Complete examples are rare (11.6 a). Construction is coherent (11.6 b). (cf. Engel 1996: 488)
| (11.6) | a. | Seine Fans kaufen ein Gesamtpaket. Stattdessen gibt es für seine Fans ein Gesamtpaket zu kaufen.225 |
| b. | Stattdessen hat es für seine Fans ein Gesamtpaket zu kaufen gegeben. |
[11.46] Typically with mit noch/viel/genug/reichlich/nichts instead of a nominal accusative ?!
| (11.7) | a. | Reisende entdecken das Land. | |
| b. | Es gibt für Reisende noch viel zu entdecken. | ||
| c. | * | Es gibt für Reisende das Land zu entdecken. |
[11.47] Typically without retained subject (11.8 a). Without retained subject it is possible to keep the accusative (11.8 b)
| (11.8) | a. | Es gibt reichlich zu trinken. Gestern hat es reichlich zu trinken gegeben. |
| b. | Ich gewinnen einen Preis. Es gibt einen Preis zu gewinnen. |
[11.48] Examples
[11.49] (cf. Engel 1996: 488-489)
| (11.9) | a. | Lanz verteidigt den Sieg. |
| b. | Jetzt gilt es für Lanz den Sieg zu verteidigen.227 |
| (11.10) | a. | Wir verlieren den Koffer nicht. |
| b. | jetzt gilt es (für uns) den Koffer nicht zu verlieren. |
[11.50] Wir knacken den Jackpot Das ist der Jackput, den es für uns zu knacken gilt.
[11.51] müssen, Plan
[11.52] Ohne ‘es’ sehr ungewöhnlich?
[11.53] “stehen ist nur mit einer Reihe von epistemischen Verben kombinierbar” (Holl 2010: 10, fn. 4) Bedeutung “zwangsweise gelten” und “kann sich nur mit Verben verbinden, die eine Erwartung ausdrücken” (Engel 1996: 481)
| (11.11) | a. | Ich befürchte einen weiteren Beschäftigungsabbau. |
| b. | Ein weiterer Beschäftigungsabbau steht zu befürchten. |
[11.54] Nur für Verben mit einer Satzeinbettung? bedenken, befürchten, bezweifeln, vermuten, hoffen, erwarten, lesen
[11.55] Special:
[11.56] Without sentence embedding predicates only very few incidental examples of anticausative
[11.57] Only possible with very few verbs?
[11.58] “möglich” Interpretation. Immer mit Negation? (vgl. negative polarity)
[11.59] Also with various manner adverbs?
[11.60] (Helbig & Buscha 2001: 166) “können” interpretation: Das Radio geht zu reparieren.
[11.61] Attested Verbs
[11.62] “müssen” Interpretation does not allow for the retention of the agent
[11.63] (Holl 2010: 18-19) incidental von agent retention is possible, but very uncommon. für agent retention is only possible with “können” interpretation
[11.64] “können” Interpretation (agent retention possible?! für)
[11.65] Weitere modale Interpretationsmöglichkeiten? brauchen?
[11.66] Mit bewertung in “können” Interpretation. Notwendige adverbiale Bewertung um diese Lesart zu kriegen?
[11.67] Diese Konstruktion führt zu “raising/lowering”!?
[11.68] das auch?
| (11.12) | a. | Ich bedenke, dass es schon spät ist. | |
| b. | Er gibt mir zu bedenken, dass es schon spät ist. | ||
| c. | Er hat mir zu bedenken gegeben, dass es schon spät ist. | ||
| d. | * | Er hat mir gegeben zu bedenken, dass es schon spät ist. |
[11.69] zu $p=VVINF geben &&! es
[11.70] Typisch mit kognitive Verben mit Satzeinbettung: bedenken, verstehen, erkennen, erwägen
[11.71] Sehr unüblich ohne Satzeinbettung? These seem to be fixed expressions.
[11.72] Wo ist die Grenze zu lexikales geben?: vgl. essen, trinken, tun, lesen, tragen, lernen. Diese Konstruktionen sind kohärent! zwei interpretationen: geben und verursachen
[11.73] not attested
[11.74] not attested
| (11.13) | a. | Ich räume den letzten Schrank ein. |
| b. | Dieser letzte Schrank bleibt mir noch einzuräumen. |
[11.75] (Colomo 2010: 196-197)
[11.76] Agent retention as dative?
Ich räume diesen Schrank ein.
Jetzt bleibt mir nur noch dieser Schrank einzuräumen.
Jemand klärt zwei Fragen.
Zwei Fragen bleiben zu klären.
Ich berichte von X. Mir bleibt zu berichten von X
Ich wünsche nichts. Mir bleibt nichts zu wünschen übrig (???)
[11.77] Typische für Verben mit einer Satzeinbettung (vgl. Holl 2010: 10): abwarten, hoffen, prüfen, entscheiden, erwägen, untersuchen, sehen, beachten, erledigen
[11.78] (Engel 1996: 478-479) “Das Modalitätsverb bleiben kann zahlreiche Verben regieren, die ein willkürliches Tun bezeichnen. Vorasussetzung ist dabei, daß dieses Tun zeitlich nachgeordnet ist, also im Zeitpunkt des Erforderlich-Seins noch aussteht.”
[11.79] Eventuell möglich ohne es?
[12.1] Konstruktionen mit am/zum. Wegen Artikel werden die Infinitive hier meistens groß geschrieben in der deutschen Orthographie.
[12.2] “präpositional angeschlossene Funktionsverben” (Duden-Grammatik 2009: 416)
[12.3] bringen, stellen, setzen, setzen, ziehen, haben, halten (Transitiv) kommen, gelangen, sein, bleiben, stehen (Intransitiv)
[12.4] Vergleich adverbiale Benutzung der nominalisierte Verben?
[12.5] beim Aufstehen Nach dem Aufstehen
[12.6] [Gárgyán (2010); krause2002]
[12.7] Es gibt eine Affinität zu prädikative Substantive, deshalb eher wie ein Nomen, aber Verben müssen zusammenbleiben, deshalb eher ein Prädikat.
[12.8] Auch mit bleiben?
[12.9] Nur intransitive verben oder Intransivierung durch Inkorporation ???
[12.10] Konstruktion mit am verbal, nicht mit beim.
[12.11] Patiens als Genitiv: wie eine Nominalisierung.
[12.12] Agens als Genitiv: kein progressiv!
[12.13] Patiens als Akkusativ
[12.14] There is another ‘progressive’ construction in German, which is not coherent though!
[12.15] Also “im” progressive (Gárgyán 2010: 25-26)
[12.16] Sehr schön kohärent
[12.17] Die Bedeutung der Verben sein/bleiben scheint sehr lexikal. Eher keine spezielle Konstruktion? Auch nicht komplett kohärent.
[12.18] Only incidental examples?
| (12.1) | a. | Ich heule über den Schaden. |
| b. | Der Schaden ist zum Heulen. |
[12.19] Attested Verbs
[12.20] Examples
| (12.2) | a. | Ich weine. |
| b. | Sie bringt mich zum Weinen. |
[12.21] Patiens als Akkustiv (nur bei antikausative Verben?)
[12.22] Patiens als Genitiv bei transitive Verben.
| (12.3) | a. | Ich besuche meinen Opa. |
| b. | Sie bringt mich zum Besuchen meines Opas. | |
| c. | Sie bringt mich zum Schenken des Buches (* an ihm) |
[12.23] Agens als Genitiv nur bei dem Vollverb bringen (Jemanden irgendwo hinbringen). Das ist eine Nominalisierung.
[12.24] Andere Nominalisierungen?
[12.25] not attested
[12.26] not attested
| (12.4) | a. | Mir brennt die Wohnung. |
| b. | Ich habe die Wohnung am Brennen. |
[12.27] (Businger 2011: 323-325)
[12.28] possessor > dative > experientive
[13.1] Beispiele hier als Adjektiv: Adverb geht wahrscheinlich auch immer!
[13.2] The central question is which of the arguments of the verb turns into the head of the noun phrase. This can be tested by using the adjective attributively (a) or predicatively (b)
[13.3] Analysis of Partizip as adjective: (Lübbe & Rapp 2011)
[13.4] cf. Zustandspassiv! Stark (-en) vs. schwach (-et) scheint kein semantischer Faktor zu sein
[13.5] Some do not work! Section 7.4.6. inanimate subjects seem to promote impossibility:
[13.6] Bei Dativ-verben mit sein geht es eigentlich immer!
Mir bleibt nur die Erinnerung. Die mir gebliebene Erinnerung. Die Erinnerung ist mir geblieben.
Das gelungene Gemälde. Das Gemälde ist gelungen.
Der Versuch ist mir leider missglückt. Der missglückte Versuch
Mir ist ein Fehler unterlaufen. Der mir unterlaufene Fehler ist schlimm.
Die Mannschaft unterliegt dem Gegner. Die dem Gegner unterlegene Mannschaft ist erschöpft.
Die Aufgabe ist mir zugefallen. Die mir zugefallene Aufgabe ist schwer.
Der Kuchen ist mir nicht geglückt. ??? Der geglückte Kuchen. Der Kuchen ist mir gut gelückt.
Der Unfall ist mir passiert. ??? Der mir passierte Unfall war schlimm.
Sie ist ihrem Mann begegnet. ^* Der begegnete Mann (früher eher “hat begegnet”?)
[13.7] Nur ganz wenige Beispiele
[13.8] Two different kinds of intransitive verbs:
[13.9] Dativ-verben mit haben geht es eher nicht, aber wenn doch, dann wird Dativ zu Head.
Die Frau antwortet dem Jungen. vs. ^* Der von der Frau geantwortete Junge ist schön.
Der Sohn hat früher seinem Vater geglichen. ^* Der seinem Vater geglichene Sohn ist jetzt erwachsen.
Der Sohn hat früher seinem Vater geähnelt. ^* Der seinem Vater geähnelte Sohn ist jetzt erwachsen.
Ich habe den Mann geholfen. Der von mir geholfene Mann. ??? Der Mann ist geholfen.
Das Hotel hat den Erwartungen voll entsprochen. Das den Erwartungen voll ensprochene Hotel. ABER: Den Erwartungen ist entsprochen. (worden????)
Die Leistung hat dem Lehrer imponiert. Der von der Leistung imponierte Lehrer. ??? Der Lehrer ist imponiert von der Leistung
Er hat dem Resultat nachgeeifert. Das nachgeeiferte Resultat. (Im Mittelpunkt standen dabei eigene Arrangements, weniger nachgeeiferte Kopien von den musikalischen Originalen.)
Sie hat ihrem Freund unterstützend zugeredet. Der von ihr zugeredete Freund. ??? Der Freund ist zugeredet.
Dem Brief hat ein Foto beigelegen. ? Das beigelegene Foto. ? Die neue Preisliste ist beigelegen.
Ich habe dem Mann gratuliert. Der gratulierte Mann. Ihm sei gratuliert. ? Er ist gratuliert.
[13.10] Geht eigentlich nicht - ausser mit Verbpräfixe!
[13.11] special:
[13.12] Reflexive: fügen, enthalten Only adverb?: leidsam, mühsam, ratsam
[13.13] Attested Verbs
[13.14] Examples
[13.15] Attested Verbs
[13.16] Examples
[13.17] Attested Verbs
[13.18] Examples
[13.19] Attested Verbs
[13.20] Examples
[13.21] Highly productive with transitive verbs
[13.22] “Für transitive Verben nach den Standardkriterien ›Akkusativobjekt und werden-Passiv‹ scheint die Bildung von bar-Adjektiven im Prinzip möglich zu sein” (Eisenberg 2013 Wort: 265)
[13.23] Examples
[13.24] Attested Verbs
[13.25] Examples
[13.26] Notes
[13.27] The adjective fehlbar seems to derive from the noun Fehler, not the verb fehlen
[13.28] Attested Verbs
[13.29] Examples
[13.30] Attested Verbs
[13.31] Examples
[13.32] Attested Verbs
[13.33] Examples
[13.34] Notes
[13.35] Not productive with most intransitives
[13.36] http://canoo.net/services/WordformationRules/Controller?wordFormationClass=Verb-zu-Adjektiv-Ableitungen+mit+dem+Suffix+lich&entryClass=Cat+A&resultId=1ad4705
[13.37] https://www.dwds.de/wb/-lich
[13.38] Attested Verbs
[13.39] Examples
[13.40] Attested Verbs
[13.41] Examples
[13.42] Attested Verbs
[13.43] Examples
[13.44] Attested Verbs
[13.45] Examples
[13.46] Attested Verbs
[13.47] Examples
[13.48] Attested Verbs
[13.49] Examples
[13.50] Gerundivum nur mit Akkusativ Objekte (cf. Modalitätspassiv: Holl 2010)
[13.51] Pakkanen-Kilpiä, Kirsi (2006):
[13.52] Dative does not work
[13.53] Intransitives do not work
[13.54] There are only few verbs that allow this, cf. Lübbe 2013; Pakkanen-Kilpiä 2008; “Wirkungsverben”: anregen, auffallen, aufregen, ausreichen, glühen, anstecken, beleidigen, enttäuschen
[13.55] With transitive verbs the object is removed, or incorporated. Incorporation not with concrete objects:
[13.56] Examples:
[13.57] Animate subject:
[14.1] check Welke 2011 Chapter 13
[14.2] Einbettungen können erhalten bleiben:
[14.3] https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Verzeichnis:Deutsch/Verbalsubstantive
[14.4] Eisenberg S. 275: nicht möglich bei:
[14.5] Eisenberg S. 276: Huster, Hopser, Jodler, Rülpser, Schluchzer, Summer(?), Treffer, Walzer
[14.6] (cf. Blume 2004)
[14.7] Manchmal ohne Artikel?
[14.8] (cf. Eisenberg S. 277) and (Ehrich & Rapp 2000)
[14.9] meistens nicht möglich: Helfung, Dankung, Fehlung, Folgung
[14.10] complement clauses remain
[14.11] Other examples: Hindernis, Erlaubnis, Erschwernis, Ersparnis, Verhältnis, Kenntnis, Ergebnis, Zeugnis, Gelöbnis, Erfordernis, Verzeichnis, Erlebnis, Geschehnis
[14.12] (Felfe 2018)
[14.13] There is a special construction available to some intransitive verbs (cf. Section X) to add an object that is a nominalisation of the verb itself, exemplified here in (a,b).
[14.14] This construction is known in the literature as a ‘cognate object’ construction (Levin 1993: 95-96), because the object is etymologically related to the verb. In many cases, this cognate object is simply a zero nominalisation (‘conversion’) of the verb stem (e.g. schlafen - der Schlaf, ‘to sleep - the sleep’). In some cases the infinitive is used (e.g. lächeln - das Lächeln, ‘to smile - the smile’). (cf. Winkler 2009; 2015: “innere Objekte” using a very broad definition).
[14.15] Normally such objects are always used with some modification: it is the modification of the noun that adds the information to this otherwise pleonastic expression (Winkler 2009: 132)
[14.16] Examples
[14.17] (cf. Winkler 2015: 27-28: sägen, feilen, hämmern, zuckern, salzen)
[14.18] Examples
[14.19] (Kamber 2008)
[14.20] NAV | NPA
[14.21] NDV | PNA
[14.22] = Akk zu Nom (‘bekommt’ als Passiv?)
[14.23] Der Lastwagen bringt das Holz / Der Lastwagen um das Holz zu bringen ist zu klein Ich male die Wand mit Farbe an / Die Farbe um (damit) die Wand anzumalen ist zu rot Material füllt das Loch / Material um das Loch zu füllen fehlte.
[15.1] There seems to be no diathesis with non-coherent subordination!
[15.2] Interesting datasources:
[15.3] Reversal of Control in (Bech 1974) Check also Bech 1955: §30
[15.4] Verba Dicendi and the like (glauben, meinen, raten)
[15.5] Allows for V2 sentences as subordinates
[15.6] Example type “zeroDecl” and verb mood “INDC” in ZAS Database. It turns out to be very common to use konjunktiv-V2 with other matrix verbs
[15.7] Repetition of the embedded sentence. Typical with long distance to embedded sentence or with multipart predicate
[15.8] In most cases expendable, except with multi-part predicates.
[15.9] Are there verbs that allow for complement clauses, but not for zu-Infintive constructions? Most possible examples seem to be more a matter of preference, and not complete impossibility, e.g. sich fragen.
[15.10] Possible examples with sich
[15.11] Possible examples without sich
[15.12] dass/um complements possible, but not ob/WH ?
[15.13] In the non-verbal sentence blueprints it is possible to insert further linguistic material between the finite light verb and the main lexical predicate. The two separated parts of the predication are referred to in German linguistics as the ‘Verbalklammer’, or sentence bracket. One of the crucial characteristics of the syntax of German is that the finite verb is moved to the end of the sentence in subordinate sentences. I will use the dummy main sentence “Es ist bekannt, dass” (‘it is known that’) to force a subordinate construction. For example, the bare prepositional blueprint in (a) has to become (c) in subordinate clauses, with the finite verb at the end; (b) is impossible, with the finite verb in the same position as in a main clause.
[15.14] Exactly the same happens in many constructions with participles and infinitives, as shown in (a-c). Constructions such with a pattern like (a-c) will be called “coherent”, following Bech (1955). Coherent constructions are considered to be mono-clausal.
[15.15] In contrast, there are many sentences that look exactly like the previous one, but which behave different in subordinate constructions. For example in (a-c), the situation is exactly reversed, with the finite verb at the end (c) being ungrammatical. Such constructions will be called ‘non-coherent’. Such non-coherent constructions are consered to be bi-clausal (see Kiss 1995 for a much more in-depth discussion).
[15.16] In some intermediate cases, both orders are possible, as shown in (a-c). These constructions will be called ‘semi-coherent’ here. (called ‘fakultativ kohärent konstruierende Verben’ in Lichte 2015: 53)
[15.17]
[15.18] Coherent clauses show further characteristics of being mono-clausal, like the additional of tense-aspect auxiliaries in () and negation in ().
[15.19]
[15.20] Most coherent construction Do not allow for an alternative finite subordinate construction, e.g. with the complementizer ‘dass’:
[15.21] However, a few coherent constructions do allow this (note the difference in control, which is yet another independent aspect)
[15.22]
[15.23] Non-coherent constructions always allow the finite subordinate alternative:
[15.24]
[15.25] This only seems to occur in exceptional cases.
[15.26] Attested Verbs
[15.27] Examples
[15.28] Notes
[15.29] The transitive angehen ‘attack’ has a different meaning
[15.30] Attested Verbs
[15.31] Examples
[15.32] preposition control
[15.33] Attested Verbs
[15.34] Examples
[15.35] Attestede Verbs
[15.36] Examples
[15.37] Notes
[15.38] Altmodisch mit ‘von’
[15.39] Attested Verbs
[15.40] Examples
[15.41] This only seems to occur in exceptional cases.
[15.42] Attested Verbs
[15.43] Examples
[15.44] Dative or accusative sich?
[15.45] Attested Verbs
[15.46] Examples
[15.47] Obligatory non-nominative es.
[15.48] Attested Verbs
[15.49] Examples
[15.50] Sie legte es darauf an zu spät zu kommen.
[15.51] Subordination replacing P/G arguments before A arguments. No subordination of dative arguments?
[15.52] Nominative control
[15.53] Asttested Verbs
[15.54] Examples
[15.55] Governed prepositional phrases allow for da + Preposition + zu + Infinitive construction. Do they all allow to drop the da + Preposition?
[15.56] From the ZAS Database it looks like the prepositions can often be left out with embedded sentences
[15.57] Nominative control
[15.58] Typically performative verbs?
[15.59] Attested Verbs
[15.60] Examples
[15.61] Notes
[15.62] Do these verbs allow for a non-sentence argument?
[15.63] Does zuschauen have a special meaning with an embedded sentence?
[15.64] The verb anordnen is sometimes called ‘hidden control’.
[15.65] Nominative control
[15.66] Attested Verbs
[15.67] Examples
[15.68] Accusative control
[15.69] Attested Verbs
auffordern, bitten, einladen, fragen, schicken, überreden, verpflichten
Sie forderte mich auf mitzumachen. Ich fordere dich auch zum Wettkampf.
Sie bat ihn nach Hause bringen zu dürfen. Ich bitte dich um ein Geschenk.
Sie lud uns ein zu kommen. Ich lade dich ein zu einem Geburtstag.
Ich frage sie zu schweigen. Ich frage sie um die Lösung.
Er schickte mich hilfe zu holen. Er schickte mich zu ihm/um Hilfe.
Ich überrede dich mitzukommen. Ich überrede dich zu einem Glas Wein.
Ich verpflichte ihn zu kommen. Ich verpflichte dich zu einem Glas Wein.
[15.70] Accusative control
[15.71] Attested Verb
[15.72] Examples
[15.73] Accusative control
[15.74] Attested Verbs
[15.75] Examples
[15.76] Dative control
[15.77] Attested Verbs
[15.78] Examples
[15.79] Dative control
[15.80] Attested Verbs
[15.81] Examples
[15.82] preposition control
[15.83] Attested Verbs
[15.84] Examples
[15.85] hidden control!
[15.86] Attested Verbs
[15.87] Examples
[15.88] Accusative control
[15.89] Dative control
[15.90] Dative control, but only for exception case of belieben?
[15.91] Nominative control, accusative sich
[15.92] Attesed Verbs
[15.93] Examples
[15.94] Some prepositions might not be possible to drop.
[15.95] Nominative control, dative sich
[15.96] Attested Verbs
[15.97] Examples
[15.98] Nominative control
[15.99] Accusative control
[15.100] These verbs can also be used without sich showing dative control. With sich, they have an accusative sich and possibly nominative subordination.
[15.101] Attested Verbs
[15.102] Examples
[15.103] Nominative subordination
[15.104] Dative sich
[15.105] Attested Verbs
[15.106] Examples
[15.107] Non-reflexive without subordination. However, rather strong lexicalisation in all cases?
[15.108] Attested Verbs
[15.109] Examples
[15.110]
[15.111] Non-reflexive without subordination. However, rather strong lexicalisation in all cases?
[15.112] Attested Verbs
[15.113] Examples
[15.114]
[15.115] These verbs are characterised by different kinds of subodination strategies, but typically they include a construction with a missing nominative argument and only a subordination. This construction with an argument-replacing es often has a slightly different, more modal (or maybe evidential?), meaning.
[15.116] (“Halbmodalverben”)
[15.117] Nominative control. Possibly some kind of anticausative alternation.
[15.118]
[15.119]
[15.120] Only coherent construction possible
[15.121]
[15.122] Nominative control
[15.123]
[15.124] Only coherent constructions possible
[15.125] Nominative control.
[15.126] Both coherent and non-coherent constructions possible (preference for non-coherence?)
[15.127] Nominative control
[15.128]
[15.129] Both coherent and non-coherent constructions possible (preference for non-coherence?)
[15.130] Nominative control
[15.131] Both coherent and non-coherent constructions possible (preference for non-coherence?)
[15.132] Subject complement clause.
[15.133] With a complement clause, there is either a dative or an adjective needed.
[15.134] Both coherent and non-coherent constructions possible
[15.135] Dative control
[15.136]
[15.137] Both coherent and non-coherent constructions possible
Many examples in this book contain masculine nouns, not because of laziness on my behalf, but because their definite articles overtly show the different German cases (der, des, dem, den). Notwithstanding this grammatical preference, I will try to use examples with as much diversity as possible throughout this book.↩︎
There is an interesting, almost philosophical, issue here that I will not delve into, namely whether the basis of grammatical analysis are the constructions themselves (cf. construction grammar) or the alternations between constructions. The statement in the main text should indeed be taken as a proposal that alternations are the more crucial entities. An alternation is the equivalent in morphosyntax of a phonological minimal pair. Alternation are also useful in the practice of grammatical description. For example, the meaning/function of a construction is often hard to describe in full, while the meaning/function of an alternation can simply be described by the difference in meaning between the alternants. Only the crucial aspect that is added by an alternation needs to be captured – a task which is already difficult enough though. Similar intuitions about the importance of alternations have lead to the development of transformations (Harris 1957).↩︎
For example, compare the infamous sentence on the first page of Levin (1993: 1) “the behavior of a verb, particularly with respect to the expression and interpretation of its arguments, is to a large extent determined by its meaning.” However, Levin’s work in practice uses form to establish classes, not meaning. This approach is followed here.↩︎
Strictly speaking, a basic clause can also be a clause with a single finite verb form in the Konjunktiv I or Konjunktiv II. However, because these are rather rare nowadays I have hidden this option in this footnote.↩︎
There appears to be a rare alternative usage to the term ‘epithesis’ in linguistics to indicate the addition of a sound to the end of the word, i.e. a special kind of epenthesis, see for example http://www.websters1913.com/words/Epithesis.↩︎
I will consider predicative adjectives also as verbs, e.g bewusst sein ‘to be aware’, einig sein ‘to agree’ or ähnlich sein ‘to resemble’. In German, predicative adjectives use the copula sein, so in many other grammatical analyses such predicates have a special status. In contrast, they will simply be treated as a single (though multiword) verb here.↩︎
There are various other nominatively-marked phrases in German grammar which are not included under this heading, e.g. the nominative in nominal or equational predication like der Täter in Er ist der Täter.↩︎
Thrax writes: διαθέσεις εἰσὶ τρεῖς, ἐνέργεια, πάθος, μεσότης “there are three diatheses, active, passive and middle” (Uhlig 1883: 48).↩︎
Confusingly, the term “resultative” is also used in the literature with an aspectual meaning, namely to indicate a special kind of state induced as the result of performing the predicate (e.g. Nedjalkov 1988).↩︎
There is no connection between a locative diathesis and a locative case. Both terms simply use the word locative to describe the fact that the marking of location is concerned.↩︎
In proposing the term pertinenz Polenz was inspired by work by Isačenko using the term in the context of inalienable possession.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 24.05.2007, Nr. 22.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 31.10.2017 online.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 06.10.2005, Nr. 41.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 30.04.2009, Nr. 19.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 19.11.2009, Nr. 48.↩︎
dwds: Perutz, Leo: Die dritte Kugel, Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt 1988 [1915], S. 36.↩︎
dwds: May, Karl: Winnetou IV, Berlin: Neues Leben 1993 [1910], S. 435.↩︎
dwds: Lemma einziehen.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 29.12.2010, Nr. 52.↩︎
dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 26.03.2001.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 19.03.1993, Nr. 12.↩︎
dwds: Die Landfrau, 12.09.1925↩︎
dwds: Klüber, Johann Ludwig: Europäisches Völkerrecht. Bd. 2. Stuttgart, 1821.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 30.07.2010↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 08.03.1996↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 04.05.1990↩︎
dwds: Oheim, Gertrud: Einmaleins des guten Tons, Gütersloh: Bertelsmann 1957, S. 296↩︎
dwds: Lehner, Angela: Vater Unser, Berlin: Hanser 2019↩︎
dwds: Fresenius, Hanna: Sauna, Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt 1987, S. 15↩︎
dwds: Weismantel, Leo: Die höllische Trinität, Berlin: Union-Verlag 1966, S. 54↩︎
Attested online at http://www.gruppe-4-w.de/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=2047#p19030, accessed 29 Juli 2019.↩︎
Attested online at http://www.kriegssinfonie.ch/2018/08/paradox/, accessed 10 January 2019.↩︎
From a typological perspective, there is arguably a difference in this respect between languages with a reflexive pronoun strategy, like German, and languages that use a verbal derivation technique for marking self-inflicting reflexive reference (cf. Dixon 2014: 172ff.). For such languages with a derivational strategy, the verb is being marked as ‘self-inflicting’ and one role is completely dropped. Thus, it is better to analyse self-inflicting reflexive reference in such languages as a kind of diathesis.↩︎
dwds: Tucholsky, Kurt: Zwischen den Schlachten. In: Kurt Tucholsky, Werke - Briefe - Materialien, Berlin: Directmedia Publ. 2000 [1919].↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 09.06.1961, Nr. 24.↩︎
dwds: E. Strauß Spiegel 45.↩︎
dwds: Weismann, August: Das Keimplasma. Eine Theorie der Vererbung. Jena, 1892.↩︎
dwds: Scriver, Christian: Das Verlohrne und wiedergefundene Schäfflein. Magdeburg, 1672.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 07.11.2013, Nr. 44.↩︎
dwds: Goethe, Faust: Prolog 317.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 27.08.1971, Nr. 35.↩︎
dwds: Grimm Simeliberg.↩︎
Attested online at http://bluemountain.princeton.edu/bluemtn/?a=d&d=bmtnabg19231201-01.2.2&, accessed 10 January 2019.↩︎
The accusative einen Augenblick in (6.53 c) is not a governed argument, but a temporal quantified object, see Section 4.3.9.↩︎
dwds: Goethe: Schertz, List und Rache.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 11.05.2015, Nr. 19.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 07.01.2018.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 20.01.2017.↩︎
dwds: Schwanitz, Dietrich: Bildung, Frankfurt a. M.: Eichborn 1999, S. 17.↩︎
dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 24.11.2003↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 30.11.2009, Nr. 49.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 31.10.2001, Nr. 45.↩︎
dwds: Fontane, Theodor: Effi Briest. Berlin, 1896.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 23.03.2005, Nr. 13.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 16.06.2009, Nr. 25.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 07.05.2016.↩︎
Attested online at https://www.faz.net/aktuell/sport/2-0-gegen-hannover-schalke-schiesst-sich-aus-der-krise-1258798.html, accessed 30 March 2021.↩︎
dwds: Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 30.09.2000↩︎
dwds: Büchner, Georg: Sämmtliche Werke und handschriftlicher Nachlaß. Frankfurt (Main.), 1879.↩︎
dwds: Bild, 28.04.2005.↩︎
Latzel (1977a: 73-76, citing and discussing data from Mater 1969) lists various verbs that do not allow for a participle. Most examples are very unusual verbs (e.g. ornamentieren, leiben), and most of the verbs listed clearly have participles (e.g. ankeuchen: er kommt angekeucht; gutachten: ich habe gegutachtet; worthalten: ich habe wortgehalten). The best examples of verbs without participles appear to be verbs with incorporated objects (e.g. bausparen, wettlaufen) that neither can be used in finite forms, nor as participle, but only as an infinitive. In these cases it is even questionable whether these words should be classified as verbs at all. Some participles indeed appear to be very rare, like with stammen, ?gestammt ‘to originate from’ or wogen, ?gewogt ‘to undulate’. However, examples are attested in corpora, e.g. Wir haben keinen Hinweis darauf, woher der Geruch gestammt haben könnte (dwds: Die Zeit, 29.12.2014 online) or Getanzt wird auch im Stehen nicht, nur gewogt. (dwds: Die Zeit, 16.04.2015, Nr. 16).↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 19.02.1988, Nr. 08.↩︎
dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 08.05.2001.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 11.01.2006, Nr. 02.↩︎
dwds: Berliner Tageblatt (Abend-Ausgabe, 12.03.1918.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 10.01.1997, Nr. 03.↩︎
dwds: Fichte, Hubert: Das Waisenhaus, Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verl. 1988 [1965], S. 139.↩︎
dwds: Jünger, Ernst: In Stahlgewittern, Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta 1994 [1920], S. 110.↩︎
Fischer writes: “Ab 1300 und häufiger erst ab 1400 bildet auch das Verb haben Perfektformen (hat gehabt). Perfektbildungen der Modalverben sind erst ab Anfang des 16. Jahrhunderts belegt, wobei diese im Mittelhochdeutschen noch verschiedene Konkurrenzformen haben […]. Erst dann hat die Perfektgrammatikalisierung alle Verben des Deutschen erfasst und ist vollständig vollzogen.” (Fischer 2020: 258)↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 04.01.2001, Nr. 02↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 08.11.2015↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 04.04.2015↩︎
dwds: Wander, Karl Friedrich Wilhelm (Hrsg.): Deutsches Sprichwörter-Lexikon. Bd. 5. Leipzig, 1880.↩︎
dwds: Die Grenzboten. Jg. 70, 1911, Viertes Vierteljahr.↩︎
dwds: Archiv der Gegenwart, 2001 [1953].↩︎
dwds: Archiv der Gegenwart, 2001 [1952]↩︎
Attested online at https://www.wohnmobilforum.de/w-t88559,start,45.html, accessed 23 April 2021.↩︎
Attested online at https://sac-saas.ch/24-02-2020-hangende-gletscher/, accessed 23 April 2021.↩︎
Data accessed on 24 May 2012, available online at https://goo.gl/xUng8v for aussehen, https://goo.gl/Xj7EW6 for erscheinen, https://goo.gl/5YvKiw for scheinen and https://goo.gl/yCai8B for wirken.↩︎
Attested online at https://www.haz.de/Umland/Wunstorf/Nachrichten/Inselvogt-Zobel-von-Feuerwehr-gerettet, accessed 16 July 2021.↩︎
Attested online at https://www.leben-mit-ms.de/expertenrat/ms-kortison, accessed 16 July 2021.↩︎
Attested online at https://blogs.cornell.edu/glp-spr58/2014/05/07/jesus-christus-und-ikea-in-wolfgang-beckers-goodbye-lenin/, accessed 16 July 2021.↩︎
Attested online at https://www.holidaycheck.de/hrd/hl-miraflor-suites-hotel-sehr-viel-verbesserungspotenzial/2e0be7a4-3803-4fe7-a19a-910d17de92b8, accessed 16 July 2021.↩︎
Attested online at https://www.zeit.de/1975/46/spurlos-verschwunden/seite-4, accessed 16 July 2021.↩︎
Attested online at https://www.hausgarten.net/gartenforum/threads/carnivoren-winterruhe.32314, accessed 16 July 2021.↩︎
Attested online at https://www.hipp.de/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17551, accessed 16 July 2021.↩︎
dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 12.07.2004↩︎
Die Zeit, 23.03.1990, Nr. 13↩︎
Die Zeit, 08.03.1974, Nr. 11↩︎
Regnier, Sandra. 2017. Die magische Pforte der Anderwelt, p. 122. Available online at https://books.google.de/books?id=Lhm1DgAAQBAJ&pg=122, accessed 16 July 2021.↩︎
dwds: Perutz, Leo: Die dritte Kugel, Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt 1988 [1915], S. 217.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 20.04.2013↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 12.05.2005, Nr. 20↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 16.12.1983, Nr. 51↩︎
Attested online at http://www.rhetorik.ch/Aktuell/11/01_27/index.html, accessed 4 June 2021.↩︎
dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 05.01.2002↩︎
dwds: Arjouni, Jakob: Chez Max, Zürich: Diogenes 2006, S. 61↩︎
dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 30.05.2001↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 05.03.2017↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 11.09.2012, Nr. 37↩︎
dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 24.11.2003↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 12.09.2017↩︎
dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 01.12.2004↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 24.09.2015↩︎
Attested online at https://wortwuchs.net/stilmittel/concessio/, accessed 6 Juni 2021↩︎
dwds: Klemperer, Victor: [Tagebuch] 1928. In: “Leben sammeln, nicht fragen wozu und warum”, Berlin: Aufbau-Taschenbuch-Verl. 2000, S. 258↩︎
dwds: Der Spiegel, 16.01.1989↩︎
Attested online at https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/dachau/brandschutz-karlsfeld-wohnhaeuser-kritik-1.5250267, accessed 17 June 2021↩︎
dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 27.04.2002↩︎
dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 17.05.2003↩︎
dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 03.05.2003↩︎
Attested online at https://www.motor-talk.de/forum/empire-bikes-und-klaus-huelsmann-t3208043.html?page=7, accessed 16 June 2021↩︎
Attested online at https://katharina-schulze.de/zukunft-wird-aus-mut-gemacht/, accessed 17 June 2021↩︎
dwds: Keil, Ernst (Hrsg.): Die Gartenlaube. Jg. 2 (1854).↩︎
Lasch 2016, citing DWDS: Nultsch, Wilhelm, Allgemeine Botanik, Stuttgart: Thieme 1964, S. 52↩︎
Lasch 2016, citing DWDS: Busch, Werner, Das sentimentalische Bild, München: Beck 1993, S. 284↩︎
Lasch 2016, citing DWDS: Archiv der Gegenwart, 2001↩︎
dwds: Wallenrodt, Johanna Isabella Eleonore von: Fritz, der Mann wie er nicht seyn sollte oder die Folgen einer übeln Erziehung. Bd. 2. Gera, 1800.↩︎
Lasch 2016, citing DWDS: Blos, Wilhelm, Denkwürdigkeiten eines Sozialdemokraten, Band 1, München: G. Birk, 1914., S. 9306↩︎
Lasch 2016, citing DWDS: Der Spiegel 23.02.1987↩︎
dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 30.05.2003↩︎
Data accessed on 24 May 2012, available online at https://goo.gl/xUng8v for aussehen, https://goo.gl/Xj7EW6 for erscheinen, https://goo.gl/5YvKiw for scheinen and https://goo.gl/yCai8B for wirken.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 08.04.1999, Nr. 15↩︎
dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 12.10.2004.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 29.09.2012, Nr. 40.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 23.07.2015↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 06.04.2015, Nr. 13↩︎
dwds: Beförderungsverbot. In: Aktuelles Lexikon 1974-2000, München: DIZ 2000↩︎
dwds: Archiv der Gegenwart, 2001 [1956]↩︎
There are no examples of gehören + Partizip with a retained agent in the corpus compiled by Lasch (2016), see https://goo.gl/VPJbAb. Höhle claims that the retention of the agent ist not possible (1978: 50-51), though his examples seem perfectly acceptable to me.↩︎
dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 12.01.2002↩︎
Attested online at https://www.tafeldeko.de/news/geburtstagsgruesse-viele-moeglichkeiten-zu-gratulieren/, accessed 16 July 2021.↩︎
Gräf, Hans Gerhard (ed.) Goethes Ehe in Briefen p. 401, available online https://books.google.de/books?id=vehYBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA401-IA2, accessed 16 July 2021.↩︎
Attested online at https://www.n-tv.de/der_tag/Boris-Johnson-in-Bruessel-ganz-handzahm-article18215036.html, accessed 15 July 2021.↩︎
Attested online at https://andreas-huckele.de/elle-ein-film-von-paul-verhoeven-mit-isabelle-huppert-ein-kinoabend-zum-selberdenken/, accessed 15 July 2021.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 13.02.2017.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 18.09.1964, Nr. 38.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 26.01.2017, Nr. 03.↩︎
The verb finden can also be combined with a regular adverb like in das finde ich gut, see Section 8.3.4. This does not appear to be possible with the other opiniative verbs wissen, glauben and sehen.↩︎
dwds: Parthey, Gustav: Jugenderinnerungen. Bd. 2. Berlin, [1871].↩︎
dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 26.01.2005 .↩︎
dwds: Gerling, Reinhold: Was muß man vor der Ehe von der Ehe wissen? In: ders., Das große Aufklärungswerk für Braut- und Eheleute, Dresden: Buchversand Gutenberg 1933 [1901], S. 207.↩︎
dwds: Bodenreuth, Friedrich [d.i. Jaksch, Friedrich]: Alle Wasser Böhmens fließen nach Deutschland, Berlin: Büchergilde Gutenberg 1938 [1937], S. 22.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 17.09.2017.↩︎
dwds: Müller-Jahnke, Clara: Ich bekenne. In: Deutsche Literatur von Frauen, Berlin: Directmedia Publ. 2001 [1904], S. 52626.↩︎
dwds: Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von: Reinecke Fuchs. In zwölf Gesängen. Berlin, 1794.↩︎
dwds: Leinemann, Jürgen, Dr Spiegel 09.05.1988, S.140.↩︎
dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 24.01.2003.↩︎
dwds: Kraus, Karl, Die Fackel, 20.03.1900, S.9.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 15.02.2016.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 14.06.2010.↩︎
Attested online at https://clione.ru/de/treatment/treatment-has-swelled-up-the-leg-what-to-do-if-swelling-and-redness-of-the-feet, accessed 13 Mai 2017.↩︎
Attested online at https://de.iliveok.com/health/warum-ist-die-lippe-geschwollen_106329i16005.html, accessed 16 July 2021.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 16.11.2013, Nr. 47.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 09.07.2017, Nr. 28.↩︎
dwds: Schiller, Friedrich: Der Geisterseher. Leipzig, 1789.↩︎
Nürnberger Nachrichten», 30.04.2007: 3, cited from Kubczak (2014: 128)↩︎
Süddeutsche Zeitung, 03.08.2011, cited from Kubczak (2014: 129)↩︎
(Duden-Grammatik 2009: 813)↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 20.11.2017, Nr. 47↩︎
In: Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache: “Wörterbuch zur Verbvalenz”. Grammatisches Informationssystem grammis. https://grammis.ids-mannheim.de/verbs/view/400556/1, accessed 27 September 2021.↩︎
dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 25.07.2005↩︎
(Duden-Grammatik 2009: 813)↩︎
Attested online at https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/deutschland/id_89453948/corona-lockerungen-die-haeme-ueber-die-friseuroeffnungen-ist-entlarvend-.html, accessed 15 September 2021.↩︎
(Duden-Grammatik 2009: 211)↩︎
Note that the reversed stack is perfectly possible, viz. Ich werde (von der Biene) gestochen werden, which is a stack of werden + Partizip Vorgangspassiv +> werden + Infinitiv Futur. However, this stack does not help decide whether an IPP occurs with the werden future.↩︎
Attested online at https://www.haustechnikdialog.de/Forum/t/242166/Viessmann-Vitopend-100-bleibt-laufen, accessed 24 September 2021.↩︎
Lutherbibel 1984: 4.Mose 21:9↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 28.11.2017.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 07.11.2017.↩︎
dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 25.01.1996.↩︎
dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 13.07.1998↩︎
dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 14.12.2002↩︎
dwds: Neutsch, Erik: Spur der Steine, Halle: Mitteldeutscher Verl. 1964 S.7↩︎
dwds: Wander, Karl Friedrich Wilhelm (Hrsg.): Deutsches Sprichwörter-Lexikon. Bd. 3. Leipzig, 1873.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 20.10.1978, Nr. 43.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 28.04.1972, Nr. 17.↩︎
dwds: Fontane, Theodor: Effi Briest. Berlin, 1896.↩︎
dwds: Pocci, Franz von: Lustiges Komödienbüchlein. Bd. 4. München, 1871.↩︎
dwds: Eckermann, Johann Peter: Gespräche mit Goethe in den letzten Jahren seines Lebens. Bd. 3. Leipzig, 1848.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 05.01.2012, Nr. 02↩︎
dwds:Die Zeit, 12.12.2013, Nr. 50↩︎
dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 26.10.2003↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 18.05.2000, Nr. 21↩︎
dwds: Kisch, Egon Erwin: Der rasende Reporter, Berlin: Aufbau-Taschenbuch-Verl. 1925, S. 7↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 05.03.2011↩︎
dwds: Die Grenzboten. Jg. 65, 1906, Viertes Vierteljahr.↩︎
dwds: Mauthner, Fritz: Wörterbuch der Philosophie. In: Bertram, Mathias (Hg.) Geschichte der Philosophie, Berlin: Directmedia Publ. 2000 [1910], S. 24606↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 06.12.2012, Nr. 50↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 10.02.2005, Nr. 07↩︎
dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 19.02.2004↩︎
dwds: Zeiller, Martin: Centvria III. Variarvm Quæstionvm. Bd. 3. Ulm, 1659.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 31.05.2007↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 21.12.2017, Nr. 49↩︎
dwds: Ganghofer, Ludwig: Der Dorfapostel, Stuttgart: Adolf Bonz 1900, S. 124↩︎
dwds: Rosegger, Peter: Die Schriften des Waldschulmeisters. Pest, 1875.↩︎
Wörterbuch zur Verbvalenz, online at https://grammis.ids-mannheim.de/verbs/view/400881/14, accessed 22 July 2021↩︎
dwds: ie Zeit, 27.11.2008, Nr. 48↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 18.01.2018, Nr. 01↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 15.09.2016↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 16.12.2010, Nr. 51↩︎
dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 30.11.1996↩︎
dwds: Süskind, Patrick: Das Parfum, Zürich: Diogenes 1985, S. 4↩︎
William M. Thackeray: Die Rose und der Ring. Übersetzung Jörg Karau 2009. Attested online at https://www.joergkarau-texte.de/PDF/Die%20Rose%20und%20der%20Ring.pdf, accessed 22 July 2021.↩︎
Note the non-standard capitalisatoin. Attested online at https://twitter.com/oerthelius/status/1368214157347221508, accessed 13 September 2021.↩︎
dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 02.10.1998↩︎
dwds: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 1995 [1945]↩︎
dwds: Droysen, Johann Gustav: Geschichte Alexanders des Großen. Hamburg, 1833.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 22.11.1985, Nr. 48↩︎
dwds: Brief von Irene G. an Ernst G. vom 07.12.1939, Feldpost-Archive mkb-fp-0270↩︎
dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 28.07.2003.↩︎
For example, see the listing of the dwds at https://www.dwds.de/wb/zu.↩︎
dwds: Brückner, Christine: Wenn du geredet hättest, Desdemona, Frankfurt a. M.: Ullstein 1986, S. 7↩︎
dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 08.03.2003↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 17.03.2016, Nr. 13↩︎
~~DWDS: Berliner Zeitung, 29.12.2003↩︎
(Engel 1996: 489-490)↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 22.11.2012, Nr. 48↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 05.04.1991, Nr. 15↩︎
Berliner Zeitung, 29.04.1995↩︎
Attested online at https://www.orchideenkultur.net/index.php?topic=23522.0, accessed 27 September 2021.↩︎
dwds: Vischer, Friedrich Theodor von: Ästhetik oder Wissenschaft des Schönen. Bd. 1. Reutlingen u. a., 1846.↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 11.12.2013↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 03.04.2014, Nr. 15↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 02.11.2012↩︎
dwds: Die Zeit, 09.06.2005, Nr. 24↩︎
dwds A. Zweig, Junge Frau, S. 203↩︎